Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Siege of Ragnarok 25

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete right now, but author is cautioned not to resubmit without the addition of suitably reliable sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Siege of Ragnarok 25


WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation by an acct that can't take a hint. It's about a video game session which as zero chance of going to mainspace. User:Bkissin User:Gbawden may want to comment further. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Even though i can't provide a reference from a reliable source, will a statement from the company developer of the game count as such? User:Bkissin User:Gbawden
 * Comment When asked on my talk page, I explained to the original editor that just because other stuff exists (in this case Bloodbath of B-R5RB) does not mean that an article should be on Wikipedia. The one thing that the Bloodbath article has over the Ragnarok article is that the battle itself was covered in reliable independent media sources (The article includes citations from Wired, Polygon, PC Gamer, The Verge, the Epoch Times and Discovery News). Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because that source would not be independent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry. I know you put a lot of work into that article, and it shows. It's probably more detailed than articles about actual battles. I'd love to see you continue to contribute here on Wikipedia, but I don't think this will apply. Is there a separate Wikia for ARK: Survival Evolved like they do for other games? Your article would be a great addition there! Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is but i wanted to see it on the official wikipedia first as it has more authority. But thanks for the props. The battle did happen as you can see from the videos, reddit threads and stream vods. Bkissin
 * Delete as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete tendentious resubmission. 10Eleventeen 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that the first real question is why Bloodbath of B-R5RB is in article space. It appears that this draft and the Bloodbath are about electronic massive multi-player simulated battles.  We have articles on real battles (regardless of the century and the continent), and occasionally on fictional battles, if the fiction has a large audience.  I don't see electronic simulated battles as notable, although I am willing to consider a very few exceptions.  I think that the second real question is whether the resubmission has been so tendentious as to warrant deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you on the simulated battles issue . Is there an argument that the Bloodbath article meets WP:GNG? Bkissin (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*Neutral at this point.
 * Comment - I am inclined to think that simulated electronic battles are not notable, even with reliable source coverage, in the absence of a notability guideline. But that is only my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The submitter has, a little late, asked politely, which is more than can be said for some submitters. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Comment About the resubmissions i just thought there is an issue with the style is written in because the first reviewer said that Wikipedia is not for game guides and i thought that the brief explanations of certain game mechanics i gave were too "Game Guidance" so i removed them. And the next resubmissions i just thought you need more references so i tried to find every video of the battle i can find. Huursa (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Robert McClenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huursa (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just became aware that other article survived an AfD. I would never have dreamt that a video game session could pass GNG. Anyway, the existence of that page does not justify the existence of this one. Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record: In the absence of a specific guideline, you use the GNG, not declare the entire topic unnotable. Yes, I'm just as surprised as anyone else that any electronic battles are notable, but this one has a massive number of references to reliable, independent sources that cover the battle in a nontrivial manner. That's all that matters. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I still don't think that virtual battles are notable, but I see that the Bloodbath survived a deletion discussion. That means that the idea of having this silly draft in draft space is not crazy.  It is true that this draft was tendentiously resubmitted, and the submitter deserves a Trout for resubmission, and possibly even a warning.  The fact that I am !voting to Keep this in draft space does not mean that it belongs in article space.  It does not, at least not now, and probably not ever, but it doesn't deserve to be blown out until it dies of old age.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert the other page is clearly an anomaly. It's been declined by enough reviewers the iser will need to move it themself and if they do I will AfD it immediately. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * keep as per above. This does not look notable, and I doubt that it ever will be, but in theory the creator or another editor could eventually find sources to satisfy the GNG, and in any case as per WP:NMFD notability is not an issue here.  I am willing to WP:AGF on the resubmisisons, but the creator has now been clearly warned not to resubmit without clear evidence of notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:47, 30 May 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.