Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Time Online


 * 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. BJ Talk 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeds of Time Online

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability per WP:WEB from reliable sources. Only claim is number of subscribers, which is not an indicator of notability. Oh, and the link provided (complete with "referrer" information) indicates that this might be WP:SPAM. -- Kinu t /c  05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; could not find secondary sources. - Samuel  Tan  06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A whopping 9 players online and a one-man dev team? Mentioned in a few web-game blogs. Mostly message-board posts, but an occasional self-published site ( and and ). It is unclear how many of these are user-submissions, but many spots and posts are or have been responded to by Josh, the game's creator. I do not see any reliable coverage as required by WP:GNG. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete — Meets criterion G11 (blatant advertising). MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to delete due to lack of notability to the outside world. (Article has been changed to where it can no longer be considered for speedy deletion.) MuZemike (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - A7 (non-notable web content), borderline spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Ridiculous that it was declined - A7 and G11. ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 does not apply and is quite frankly dramatically abused these days. To quote: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." Worse, the article even makes some suggestion of notability by saying "Seeds of Time Online has recently passed ten thousand members." And for G11, there is no reason to believe that it is advertisement aside from the player-referral reference (which can easily be fixed -- in fact, I just did so now) -- the article addresses gameplay, the game system, and player interaction, all of which can be seen in other MMORPG entries, such as World of Warcraft and Ragnarok Online and Lineage 2. The problem of the article is notability, and that can only be addressed in AfD discussions. Please keep this in mind in the future when suggesting Speedy Delete. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, good point, and I will change my decision. However, keep in mind that users and admin can still speedily delete an article if the criteria seem fit, just as with the one of the recent Pokemon articles. MuZemike (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I respectfully disagree that it deserved to a Speedy Delete fate. However, the failure to confirm notability in this discussion would suggest it will be meeting erasure sooner rather than later. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Naturally I will say this, as I wrote the article. But:

1) Yes, ten thousand plus people is a lot.  Quite frankly, I believe it is enough.

2) In response to the statement regarding the amount of players online. . .  The nature of the energy system of the video game does not allow anyone to play it for large amounts of successive time.

3) Also, one of the key factors in the decisions of several people here seem to be the small amount of information it gives.  As far as I recall, this is not a reason for deletion.  I admit the article is. . . incomplete.  It should therfore be expanded, not deleted. Goingkeeps (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTE for what constitutes notability. I have three videos on YouTube I created with more than 10,000 views each and more than 100,000 views among them. None of them deserves its own Wikipedia article. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (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.