Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man (tool-assisted speedrun)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No consensus, most keep voters are saying that this article is too new and has not had time to develop. Therefore, no prejudice against a re-AfD in the near future if this article doesn't address the concerns a specified by the delete voters. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man (tool-assisted speedrun)
Speedrun vanity. This is full of POV about the speedruns, and is based entirely on threads from a single forum. It doesn't even really bear mentioning in Mega Man (video game), as it isn't supported by a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Merge into tool-assisted speedrun El cid the hero 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Verifiability problems, notability problems. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As it is I'd agree that it's unverifiable; but it seems to be that additional sourcing and a minor rewrite could fix that. Kickaha Ota 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, do we really need articles about video game speed runs? --Coredesat 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedrun Delete non-notable, vanity--Nick Y. 00:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I should have caught this when I saw it added to the Mega Man disambiguation page. Sorry 'bout that. Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, possibly merge (with some updating & sourcing) or... transwiki... or whatever. I don't think individual speedruns need articles of their own. At best, they're section-worthy in the game article. Yet, I can't do anything else but say this is a fascinating article. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I've only started writing this article a few days ago. I haven't been able to properly convey the importance of the subject matter in writing yet. Please note that this is an extremely important speedrun; it's considered to be the most accurate and typical example of tool-assisted speedrunning and thus deserves to have its own article. I intend to make full use of this article in relevant context in other articles as well. If you say that this should be deleted, then you should look into speedrunning, since if you have any knowledge of the phenomenon, you should know that this is indeed very notable and keepable. Note: there are no notability and verifiability problems; I simply haven't gotten around to editing this information into the article!! Please see the various sites that have mentioned this run; don't blindly assume it's not notable because it's difficult to find search terms for in Google! I have written a lot of information of the speedrun article and thus know that this particular speedrun is very important in the description of the phenomenon! Reliable sources are, of course, on the way, but you must give me a chance, please! —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: the article, as it is right now, in its early form (only a couple of days old), has references to other articles, has proper headings and wikification, has lots of paragraphs which are going to be well-written and larger in the future, has screenshots that show interesting facts about both route planning and the usage of tools to run through a game (as noted in tool-assisted speedrun and speedrun), has references, has notes... how could one possible suggest that it is a non-notable article when it has so many ties already, even in its early days of development? I really don't see the AfD reason here, and I also don't see why so many people have already voted for deletion. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: As far my word as the author of the run can be trusted, there are no verifiability problems. The page is also beyond a stub. It is the embodiment of many tool-assisted speedrun -related concepts, which is why it makes a good article in my opinion, and provides informative content to those who read about the concepts. I do agree that it is not noteworthy on its own as a speedrun. There are no articles of other speedruns, that I know. As for "reliable source", the tool-assisted speedrun community, a member of which is maintaining the article, is as reliable source for tool-assisted speedrun related information as there can be. —Bisqwit 12:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot be trusted. I cannot be trusted. Wikipedia doesn't rely on the word of its authors; instead, it uses reliable sources, something this article is severely lacking. Can you cite a reliable source, preferably multiple, supporting the claims made in this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand what's the deal. The techniques mentioned within are explained at another article and they can be verified by testing them. As for things like "a bot was used", those things are reference to the movie author's (my) words, and do you really need to prove somehow that the author said so? Can you even do it better than linking to the original publication (as msikma is already doing)? What exactly is there that needs verification but is not verifiable? --Bisqwit 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any source outside of this one site to verify any claim made in this article about this speedrun? I think it's a phenomenon of interest only to posters on that site, frankly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot argue against that it's only in the interest of the posters on that site. Tool-assisted speedrunning happens to be quite centralized -- there is very little duplicate effort. That's why I said "weak" :) The "keep" comes from the opinion that it anchors many of the concepts of tool-assisted together. --Bisqwit 14:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This change is particularly telling. If you can't cite that opinion, it's original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and this AfD is way premature, if it ends up a delete it's a damn shame. ShaunES 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete This is a well crafted article, it is comprehensive and properly laid out. However the sourcing is questionable, if exhaustive, and keeping an article on such a minor topic implies a dangerous notability precedent. There are thousands of speed-runs for hundreds of games, none of them really matter to anyone who is not a video game enthusiast. Tool-assisted speedrun provides sufficient coverage. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But this isn't "thousands of speedruns for hundreds of games". This is one article about one speedrun which is incredibly notable. The fact that it has not been properly sourced is because it's only a few days old. Please give the stub some time to develop. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's as fine of an examination of a specific speed run as I've ever seen, but it's not incredibly notable. A new development in cancer research is incredibly notable, a book that sells millions of copies is incredibly notable, a Mega Man tool-assisted speedrun is not. (Please don't take this as a denouncement of your contributions or of the videogame field in general, this discussion isn't about that) ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 13:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually the absolute best example of tool-assistance and, as was mentioned, it anchors many of the different concepts of tool-assistance together. If tool-assisted speedrunning is a notable subject, then this could be seen as an explanation of tool-assisted speedrunning; an extension of an article due to it being in just a slightly other scope. That's why this article is useful to keep around. If you disagree with the notability, then please use a tag instead. I feel that deleting it straight away is paranoid. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Only a few days old. Has not been given sufficient time to develop. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into tool-assisted speedrun, after briefening. It's one of the best and most well-known examples of a tool-assisted speedrun and will demonstrate many of the associated concepts in a concrete and familiar context. Specific speedrun techniques for a specific game and the detailed history of the run are outside of our scope and more appropriate for a speedrun wiki. Deco 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is still very young, give it time to expand. There is also an obvious relation to the tool-assisted speedrun article, to which it could provide useful context. Matthieu Savard 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fourth edit, first since Dec. 21. Page User:Matthieu Savard was initially edited by User:Msikma. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This is not a sockpuppet of mine. Matthieu Savard is a friend of mine who is an active speedrunner. Don't accuse me of sockpuppetry, please. He's done anonymous edits to articles before, he's told me, mostly related to competitive arcade gaming. His account was started 21 December 2005 and does not have any relation to mine other than that I inaurigated him and thus edited his userpage. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make him a meatpuppet. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * His account has existed since December 2005. I did not make the account. I also didn't (have to) convince him to come over and vote in my favor. To prove his existence and his affiliation to speedrunning, he's noted in serveral (two?) descriptions of speedruns on the Speed Demos Archive, such as here: . One of his speedruns is awaiting validation. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember that use of the term "meatpuppet" can be offensive, and may scare away newcomers. (The very policy you cited states this.) Instead of accusing, try to welcome newcomers, regardless of their reasons for coming, and explain why their votes probably won't be counted. Remember, we don't want to bite the newbies. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Michiel and I explained things to Anetode over IRC and decided that my vote would be better off not being counted either way as it felt somewhat like foul play. So the issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. 70.80.29.62 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are Matthieu Savard, I assume? Thanks for your understanding. But please don't think of it as "foul play". You are new, and unfamiliar with our customs, but this does not mean that you're opinions aren't welcome (although they probably won't be counted by the closing admin). We hope you decide to stay! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether the vote is counted is up to the closing admin, thanks to the discussion on IRC I was able to ascertain that the post was not a sockpuppet vote by sikma. Matthieu Savard is apparently a rather knowledgable gamer who has made contributions to the .fr Wikipedia. He was very reasonable about discussing my concerns over what appeared to be vote-stacking by a meat puppet - a view that I do not hold anymore. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see his French userpage here. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 08:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per various discussions above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for being a textbook example of speedrunning. - Wickning1 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.