Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OIFY: Codename Internets!


 * 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 was delete. Krimpet (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OIFY: Codename Internets!

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable game mod. Weregerbil 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not non-notable, it's known to lots of people out there. I speel good 17:24, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
 * It has gotten alot of attention where it was first announced, Facepunchstudios.com. Gutted 16:35, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
 * You mean forums.facepunchstudios.com, the forums of Facepunch. I speel good 17:35, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, being posted on a forum is not a sign of notability. Phony Saint 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it should be noted that I speel good and Gutted describe themselves, in their user pages, as creator and head writer of OIFY respectively, and have made little to no edits outside of the article and this AFD. This seems to be a case of using Wikipedia as free advertising, which ought not be tolerated. Charlie 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable self promotion. This has less than 50 Google hits. -- MisterHand 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's our fault we wanted to give more info to the mod. I speel good 17:55, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also, it should be noted that we are not the creators of the OIFY, but the creators of the MODIFACATION BASED on the OIFY. I speel good 17:58, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * On a sidenote, having offered a forum, having 36 people watching the mod and 10+ pages of discussion is a sign of notability. I speel good 17:58, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2) — I speel good (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ...um, no, it's not. Read that link. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say that you are being very unfair right now. People will want to know about this mod, and we will update the page regurlarly. Gutted 17:05, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
 * Having come into this late and reading this, it looks like the delete args in here are quite fair. You may want to give WP:AADD a good read, along with the above link to WP:N.  A few hits on Google, three dozen users, and a forum doth not notability make. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe it will help you to understand why this is happening by taking a look at some of our policies, specifically notability guidelines. The most important point there, is that notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Charlie 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So Minerva, the multiplayer mod, is notable, but this is not? How so, what is the difference? Gutted 17:22, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
 * We aren't talking about Minerva. We are talking about this one.  Besides, where's the article for the Minerva mod? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer to that (i_speel_good), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINERVA_%28mod%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by i_speel_good (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like somebody has asked for some cleanup, so it may qualify for an AfD as well. Even so, this isn't the AfD for MINERVA (mod).  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heck, I suck in english. I speel good 18:16, 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
 * Delete already. Crystalballery for something the authors admit is not likely to see the light of day for a year (if it ever sees that light). Create an article when the thing actually exists; notability can be judged then. Deor 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as WP:CRYSTALlized and non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Let me count the ways. We've got spam, conflict of interest, crystalballism, and multiple failures of what Wikipedia is not, reliable sources, and arguments to avoid. DarkAudit 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sheer crystalballery, and I'm starting to think that WP:SNOW applies as well, based on the arguments. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, when did we actually DO all that stuff? We made a page about something, I don't see how it's spam or anything else. About the Crystalballery, ok, but I have seen several stuff like that on several places not get deleted. So fine, if you continue whining like that delete it. We'll make our own wiki on our own server. HAH. And no, don't start "oh you're so rude" BEACUSE I DON'T CARE. If you can't just accept the fact that we worked on something then WikiPedia is the worst place ever. I speel good 20:35, edited on 20:38 3 June 2007 (GMT+2)
 * OK. Yes, other articles are just as non-notable.  We find them, they find their way here.  Just because they exist doesn't mean that your article can violate the rules.  As for your article, let me distill it for you: I have to follow the rules, and so do you.  All articles on WP have to follow the rules.  The must be notable, this must be demonstrated (i.e., verifiable) by reliable sources.  Your article fails to do any of these, and that's why we're here.  To answer your note as to why we can't just accept it, it is because we are not a site for the appreciation of the written word or article.  We are, in fact, striving to be an encyclopedia.  Aside from that, if you really think that we're the "worst place ever" because we demand that you follow our rules when you write an article, well, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you still have to follow the rules. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, for what it's worth, I encourage you to set up your own Wiki. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it would be "illegal" to call you people names. But I'll do it mildly. BASTARDS!                Gutted 20:18, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
 * Dude, be nice, please. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Obviously non-notable and maybe a promotion.  *Cremepuff 222*  " As cool as grapes... "  18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Items that are in development, but not adequately covered by the media or reliable sources should not appear, per WP:CRYSTAL. After all, I cannot find any mention by any popular gaming mags.--Kylohk 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:I speel good's first contribution was on 03Jun2007 at 07:24 UTC - on this AFD. User:Gutted has been around since January, but has made few edits outside of the scope of this AFD or the subject thereof. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoah, wait there, tiger. I made a OIFY Mod page a long time ago, about August, and it got deleted for the same reason. I see we aren't getting anywhere. NEW WIKI, HERE WE COME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I speel good (talk • contribs)
 * Hey, go for it. I for one encourage you to run your own site.  It's a big internet, and we don't have a monopoly on wikis, youk now. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per DarkAudit, others. This is just advertising for vaporware. Edward321 23:35, 3 June 2007 (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.