Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seriously!


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously!


I don't think the article satisfies WP:WEB. JDtalk 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) All of these reasons should qualify the site as noteworthy under WP:WEB policies. Not to mention that in a Google search for "serious sam" / "serious sam 2" / "serious sam II" / "seriously" and other related searches the link is among the top several results. --SamFan64 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — SamFan64 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom. Buck  ets  ofg  21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The site doesn't appear to have been given non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't appear to have won any notable awards, and it's content isn't distributed by an entity notable and independent of the website. Quite possibly it's only claim to notability is being the main mirror for Croteam downloads, but I don't think that's important enough to be considered notable. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable website promotion. I can't find any evidence via google that this meets WP:WEB.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rever e ndG 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per absence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without the coverage of independent reliable sources, this site does not satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nomination. I nominated it for such initially, citing WP:WEB, and still believe it does not satisfy that. --Mhking 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete -- gamefanblogcruft, NN Pete Fenelon 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I must rather say that there is some 'rules' in the WP:WEB is not good enough to prove how good the web is. Awards doesn't mean that the website is good, because the awards doesn't mean anything, except that you are good, that's it. And though it doesn't met the third one, many people (including fans) actually knew the website without having to even search once. Why? Croteam has already provided a link on their web, and even in their games. Don't tell me Croteam is not famous enough. --165.21.155.17 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The site is the largest Serious Sam and Serious Engine website on the net, and has been for approximately the past 6 years. The reasons it is notable are as follows:
 * Its message boards are the official Croteam and Serious Sam message boards. They are linked to as official tech support on Croteam.com as well as in the Start Menu folders for the two most recent games.
 * It is the official download site (not simply a mirror) for Croteam's official file releases. If you look on Croteam.com you can see that all of the links on the main page go directly to Seriously! (there are also direct links on the left sidebar for the official forums and such).
 * They sell official merchandise for Croteam and the Serious Sam games. I don't think very many other gaming sites can make this claim (if any at all).  In my opinion, this fact alone makes it notable enough.
 * The Serious Editor Workshops (again, details can be found on Croteam.com) are held on a regular basis and bring in members of Croteam to discuss the engine and the editor.
 * Numerous stories and downloads from Seriously! have made their way onto other sites dozens of times (e.g. Blue's News, Voodoo Extreme, ShackNews). While no specific feature-length articles have been written about the site, dozens of news posts should qualify as noteworthy independent publishing.
 * It would be good if you could collect examples of those numerous stories and create a small section listing some of them (along with the originals on Seriously!) in the article itself, only assuming those sites republishing them are larger (definitely not smaller) than Seriously! itself. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia should be a source of all information in the world. Adding content like this should be allowed, and not deleted. These contents are the ones which beat almost every search engine because they provide more useful infomation than the others. Deletion like this will probably attract less people here as people will not be able to find required info like this.
 * This article should not be deleted 165.21.155.8 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (moved from the article's talk page)
 * Keep Wikipedia's policy regarding Notability for Internet content is far too limited to be valid and should not be used as a reason for removing this article. Let me point out some reasons why as follows:
 * Criteria #1, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * There are several problems with this criterion. First, when it comes to the Internet very few entities write articles about the content of another entity, in general they merely link to it and provide a brief description. Second, the mainstream sources that do publish articles on the content of an entity are usually biased and have content policies about catering to their target audience.
 * Essentially, mainstream sources generally do not write non-trivial articles on sites, or their content, that do not fit the material guidelines for their target audience. This is especially true of independent entities like Seriously! and therefore is not a valid criterion for notability.
 * Criteria #2, The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * This is also an invalid criterion because awards, by nature, are biased and cannot be considered as reputable proof that the site, or its content, are noteworthy. In a contest for awards any and all of the contestants may be equally as noteworthy as the winner.
 * Criteria #3, The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
 * Again, like with #1 this criterion fails in a very fundamental way. Mainstream sources will not publish or distribute content from an entity they do not feel is of interest to their target audience, and who they consider as not being noteworthy. Thus, Wikipedia's policies become subordinate to those of all outside sources, biases, and 3rd parties.
 * In defense of this article one person compared Seriously to TribalWar, which has also had its bouts with AfDs. In response a point was made by Humblefool, on the Seriously Talk page, "Tribalwar's had major news media coverage (G4TV), which makes it notable." Based on the issues I have mentioned with Wikipedia's policy, how is TribalWar any more notable than Seriously? Currently TribalWar is nothing more than a general news site, whereas Seriously hosts most of the content and services related to the games it has always supported. Based on present circumstances TribalWar cannot be considered more notable than Seriously.
 * Before I go on I want it to be clear that I am not advocating the removal of the TribalWar article from Wikipedia. I am merely pointing out that the current Wikipedia policy being used here is not based in reality. The Internet operates on a different system than the traditional literary and historical records do. The notability of anything is subject to the opinions, views, experience, and awareness of each person or entity. CNN may have never heard of TribalWar except for some silly meme that popped up there. G4TV may have never covered TribalWar's 2004 event except for the support of the developers of Tribes: Vengeance. Does this mean that TribalWar is now more notable than they were before they were noticed? Did they go from zero to hero by chance?
 * The point is that notability should be derived from the actions and accomplishments of a person or entity and not by who writes about them. Abraham Lincoln was notable for what he did, not because he was the President of the United States or that we have been writing about him ever since. This same principle is what must be applied when it comes to the Internet, because otherwise we might as well just have one page for Myspace and Google because people write books about them.
 * Seriously has made many accomplishments over its 6 year lifespan, but you will not find many, if any, articles recording them by 3rd parties. All it means is that this site has not been noticed by anyone. But let me ask you this, if it was not worthy of note then why have nearly 15,000 people registered on its forums? Why has it averaged 1,000s upon 1,000s of visitors per day? Why do the vast number of non-mainstream sites that report on or mention Serious Sam link to Seriously? The reason is because Seriously is the top level site in its subject area. It is like Microsoft.com for all Windows related subjects.
 * Seriously has had the full support of the developers of the game series the site is based on since day one. Seriously has run competitions, hosted lan parties, provided technical support, done live coverage and interviews at major media events like E3, and has even arranged and facilitated live workshops between the developers and their fans. Just because very little of this can be verified by outside sources should not be reason to remove this article. Notability policy is worthless if it is unfair. --Louva-Deus 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that notability is just a guideline, and a disputed and contentious one at that. On the other hand, Verifiability is official policy.  If, as you say, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, that by itself is reason to delete the article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That dosn't merit reasoning for the articles deletion, but rather for a extensive cleanup of the article with proper citations and added varifiable content. I tend to see the "Delete it now" reaction to certain articles here and there in Wikipedia and I feel it's not the proper, constructive way to deal with the problems presented in the article. Encouraging proper information presentation and article editing standards is a far better solution that remove information because not *everyone* finds it relevant and useful. AT worst the article can be merged into the Serious Sam article as a subsection. -- Daniel "BurnHavoc" Pawliw 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this article unreliable? Didn't Croteam posted news on their Website? Isn't it already reliable enough? Seriously! isn't a site which post anything that is untrue. If it is, I doubt the onwer will waste money to setup a server just to do that. Also, yeah, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, but there is still some part that verify this article, don't you think so? Very little doesn't mean there is nothing, please mind that. -- 219.74.108.61 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — 219.74.108.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are missing my point. My argument applies both to Notability and Verifiability. Just because a site has not been noticed by anyone "important" does not mean that it is unworthy of being listed. The only thing the article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. It is unreasonable to think that every site on the Internet that should be listed on Wikipedia must have been mentioned by some biased media source. There are billions of pages on the Internet, and it is impossible for these sources to cover them all just so they could be listed here, and as I have mentioned they never would do this anyway because of their content policies. If TribalWar can be listed for having accomplished the creation of a fad, then are you saying that Seriously should come up with their own meme and lobby CNN to publish them just to get listed on Wikipedia? In my humble opinion it would be unfair and discriminatory to have such a requirement. So I say again that the only thing this article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. --Louva-Deus 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good discussion to be having on the WP:WEB talk page. I haven't checked it to see if you're already there or not, but if you aren't I strongly suggesting bringing the case over there. I'm not particularly fond of the guideline in its current form either, to be honest, and that's the place to get it changed. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless reliable third-party mentions can be found-WP:WEB allows for notability if someone major distributes your content, not if you distribute someone major's content, which seems to be an important distinction here. As to those objecting to the notability guidelines-you may wish to read User:Uncle G/On notability, he says it much better then I ever would. Seraphimblade 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there are already articles on the game which can link to this site. The Website has no significance beyond the game so no separate page --BozMo talk 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Non-notable website about possibly notable game.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many of the reasons for notability have already been mentioned (e.g. Official Merchandising for the games), but regarding outside sources publishing works, there are numerous cases of this. Blue's News, Voodoo Extreme, Shacknews, and others have frequently posted stories referencing either articles or content on our website or posts on our message boards.  Additionally, GameStar magazine published several items that were exclusively posted on Seriously! on the DVD that accompanied their September 2003 edition of their magazine.  They're the biggest gaming magazine in Germany.  --Rodzilla 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) - Also, there was an article written specifically on the site that is referenced in the wikipedia entry.  --Rodzilla 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At best redirect.  Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SeriousFan and Louva-Deus, despite their having a fairly obvious interest in the site itself. The WP:WEB guidelines are extremely contentious (and guidelines to boot), so I'd prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt. The article is well-written and informative, if a bit uninteresting (hardly a hanging offense around here!), and contributes verifiable knowledge about a website known and used by a reasonably large number of people. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 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.
 * It is true that notability is just a guideline, and a disputed and contentious one at that. On the other hand, Verifiability is official policy.  If, as you say, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, that by itself is reason to delete the article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That dosn't merit reasoning for the articles deletion, but rather for a extensive cleanup of the article with proper citations and added varifiable content. I tend to see the "Delete it now" reaction to certain articles here and there in Wikipedia and I feel it's not the proper, constructive way to deal with the problems presented in the article. Encouraging proper information presentation and article editing standards is a far better solution that remove information because not *everyone* finds it relevant and useful. AT worst the article can be merged into the Serious Sam article as a subsection. -- Daniel "BurnHavoc" Pawliw 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this article unreliable? Didn't Croteam posted news on their Website? Isn't it already reliable enough? Seriously! isn't a site which post anything that is untrue. If it is, I doubt the onwer will waste money to setup a server just to do that. Also, yeah, very little of this can be verified by outside sources, but there is still some part that verify this article, don't you think so? Very little doesn't mean there is nothing, please mind that. -- 219.74.108.61 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — 219.74.108.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are missing my point. My argument applies both to Notability and Verifiability. Just because a site has not been noticed by anyone "important" does not mean that it is unworthy of being listed. The only thing the article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. It is unreasonable to think that every site on the Internet that should be listed on Wikipedia must have been mentioned by some biased media source. There are billions of pages on the Internet, and it is impossible for these sources to cover them all just so they could be listed here, and as I have mentioned they never would do this anyway because of their content policies. If TribalWar can be listed for having accomplished the creation of a fad, then are you saying that Seriously should come up with their own meme and lobby CNN to publish them just to get listed on Wikipedia? In my humble opinion it would be unfair and discriminatory to have such a requirement. So I say again that the only thing this article needs is to be rewritten and properly cited. --Louva-Deus 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good discussion to be having on the WP:WEB talk page. I haven't checked it to see if you're already there or not, but if you aren't I strongly suggesting bringing the case over there. I'm not particularly fond of the guideline in its current form either, to be honest, and that's the place to get it changed. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless reliable third-party mentions can be found-WP:WEB allows for notability if someone major distributes your content, not if you distribute someone major's content, which seems to be an important distinction here. As to those objecting to the notability guidelines-you may wish to read User:Uncle G/On notability, he says it much better then I ever would. Seraphimblade 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there are already articles on the game which can link to this site. The Website has no significance beyond the game so no separate page --BozMo talk 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Non-notable website about possibly notable game.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many of the reasons for notability have already been mentioned (e.g. Official Merchandising for the games), but regarding outside sources publishing works, there are numerous cases of this. Blue's News, Voodoo Extreme, Shacknews, and others have frequently posted stories referencing either articles or content on our website or posts on our message boards.  Additionally, GameStar magazine published several items that were exclusively posted on Seriously! on the DVD that accompanied their September 2003 edition of their magazine.  They're the biggest gaming magazine in Germany.  --Rodzilla 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) - Also, there was an article written specifically on the site that is referenced in the wikipedia entry.  --Rodzilla 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At best redirect.  Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SeriousFan and Louva-Deus, despite their having a fairly obvious interest in the site itself. The WP:WEB guidelines are extremely contentious (and guidelines to boot), so I'd prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt. The article is well-written and informative, if a bit uninteresting (hardly a hanging offense around here!), and contributes verifiable knowledge about a website known and used by a reasonably large number of people. --Arvedui 02:52, 30 November 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.