- 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 ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
web content with only 42 google hits for the article name. References are either directly from the web content itself, lack information on the subject(i.e. just a link to the page with no information), or completely uncheckable(e.g. the personal interview with no context) i kan reed 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Personal interview cited MLA style. As explained, this style does not require reference to the interviewer. Interviewer is made available via phone/email contact by request. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 2:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia referencing guidelines require that sources be verifiable. Personal communications are not verifiable; therefore, they aren't valid sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are personal interviews considered an established source in every other aspect of literature then? While burden of proof is on the user, it simply cannot be said "these are unverifiable." Reasons for this accusation must be made so it can then be shown it is not true. Keep in mind sources are only needed for something that might be up for debate in the article. Much of the article is not update for debate, however, and need not a reference to be proven while it can be be viewed by the user themselves (thus the referencing of the subject twice) Placing an impossible to reach burden of proof simply to strive for articles deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Please sign your comments. It's not an impossible burden of proof. One simply needs a source discussing the matter that is well-acknowledged as a source of valid information, such as a newspaper, or magazine. personal inteviews fail this requirement because there's no means of verifying they happened. Other kinds of interviews, such as formal interviews by a magazine, or any sort of documented and beckcheckable source would be accepted. No one here is claiming the interview didn't happen, or that anything said in it was untrue, it's just there's no way for any other editor to use the interview to check information cited. That's important to wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia edited by numerous users who work together to fact check things. i kan reed 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you are not aware of what a personal interview explains, I will tell you here. A personal interview explains the method of interview. This does not mean it was informal and it does not mean it was not conducted by a magazine. MLA style of citation does not require that these things are made known. Odd that you would declare wikipedia above the level of MLA citation! In fact, magazine "The Maverick" is cited within article as well and you neglect to mention that. Keep in mind what was said in another comment of mine, citation is only needed for facts that may be disputable. Numbers of something, dates, rankings. These things are all indeed cited. Claims that citations are needed for things that do not need to be cited show lack of knowledge. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please sign your comments. It's not an impossible burden of proof. One simply needs a source discussing the matter that is well-acknowledged as a source of valid information, such as a newspaper, or magazine. personal inteviews fail this requirement because there's no means of verifying they happened. Other kinds of interviews, such as formal interviews by a magazine, or any sort of documented and beckcheckable source would be accepted. No one here is claiming the interview didn't happen, or that anything said in it was untrue, it's just there's no way for any other editor to use the interview to check information cited. That's important to wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia edited by numerous users who work together to fact check things. i kan reed 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are personal interviews considered an established source in every other aspect of literature then? While burden of proof is on the user, it simply cannot be said "these are unverifiable." Reasons for this accusation must be made so it can then be shown it is not true. Keep in mind sources are only needed for something that might be up for debate in the article. Much of the article is not update for debate, however, and need not a reference to be proven while it can be be viewed by the user themselves (thus the referencing of the subject twice) Placing an impossible to reach burden of proof simply to strive for articles deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia referencing guidelines require that sources be verifiable. Personal communications are not verifiable; therefore, they aren't valid sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether it's true, or whether you can say things about its contents, what matters is that some other person could look it up, and backtrack the various claims to their sources. Most of the time people don't, the ability to is a requirement for references. Otherwise the claims made through them are no more meaningful than arbitrarily declaring "I have the biggest stack of matresses in a residential environment". It may be true, and I personally may be able to verify it, but no one else can. That is the reason why personal interviews are problematic. Secondly, I did check all your links, and "maverick" is owned by you, and is a personal site, not a well read publication. Since it mentions that the maker of "Alex's DBZ RPG" is also the writer of the article in question, this is also evidence of violating WP:VANITY, but that's another issue, and nothing to do with the article in question.
- "I have the biggest stack of mattresses..." is completely different than articles subject. Nowhere in article does creator of site claim anything. The article was not written by someone associated with the site. Nor was "The Maverick". Affiliation with ADBZRPG does NOT mean site creators are same. Look at list of ADBZRPGs affiliates. By your logic, Alex must be the owner of all of these sites! You seem to neglect to read things that disprove your points and skim sources for things that vaguely may. Writer of the article in question? Compiled By: Alexander Hinkley. Compiled specifically means they were not written by this person. As per the interview, I have said multiple times, interviewer is made available by telephone/email by request. Interview-ee also is available by request. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether it's true, or whether you can say things about its contents, what matters is that some other person could look it up, and backtrack the various claims to their sources. Most of the time people don't, the ability to is a requirement for references. Otherwise the claims made through them are no more meaningful than arbitrarily declaring "I have the biggest stack of matresses in a residential environment". It may be true, and I personally may be able to verify it, but no one else can. That is the reason why personal interviews are problematic. Secondly, I did check all your links, and "maverick" is owned by you, and is a personal site, not a well read publication. Since it mentions that the maker of "Alex's DBZ RPG" is also the writer of the article in question, this is also evidence of violating WP:VANITY, but that's another issue, and nothing to do with the article in question.
- Delete per nom. Non-notable. Assertions of importance on article's talk page don't do anything to convince me otherwise. -- Kicking222 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources; 41 members. I seriously doubt this RPG was the "forerunner to idea of games like Everquest" (as the talk page claims), especially as Everquest was released in March of 1999, while this one was "born in June 1999". Zetawoof(ζ) 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Your reference to the talk page misinterprets the quote. "Games like Everquest" refers to the genre of MMORPGing and games similiar to that of Everquest which did not begin to gain popularity until around the time site was created. Everquest referenced as well known PC MMO. Hope that this clarifies it for you. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 1:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Everquest wasn't the first MMORPG either - not by a long shot. MUDs date back into the late 1970s. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming - that people started playing Everquest because they'd seen this RPG? That seems terribly unlikely.Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MUDs not are considered MMORPGs. Irrelevant to debated topic. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everquest wasn't the first MMORPG either - not by a long shot. MUDs date back into the late 1970s. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming - that people started playing Everquest because they'd seen this RPG? That seems terribly unlikely.Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Your reference to the talk page misinterprets the quote. "Games like Everquest" refers to the genre of MMORPGing and games similiar to that of Everquest which did not begin to gain popularity until around the time site was created. Everquest referenced as well known PC MMO. Hope that this clarifies it for you. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 1:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- delete; vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there's no evidence of that. I have no reason to beleive that this article was created by the creator of it's subject. i kan reed 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN this sucker. Obviously not notable, but its absurd and outrageous claims need immortality. Interrobamf 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep; Proposed deletion based on incorrect assumptions. 42 google hits? According to [tracker on site], site has hundreds of google hits. This was raised on faulty information. Server moved/___domain changed several months ago, resets google valuability. Goes to show "42 google hits" is wrong. 41 members is ignorant conclusion leap. Forum has nearly 1,000 members. 41 member count displayed on site only displays characters from the show that are taken. Site allows for non-show participation and creative writing membership. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 1:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- 1,000 members is still not all that many. Articles have been deleted on web forums with thirty times as many users - Genmay, for example. Member count really doesn't mean much until you get into the hundred-thousand range, and even that can be debatable. Also, "google hits" refers to the number of unique results on a Google search for "Alex's DBZ RPG", not the number of clickthroughs from web searches. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Must be educated on the genre of game we are talking about to know 1,000 members if phenomenal. Do you not think best of a genre is note worthy? Aware that some genres may be so small it would not matter but if you are to search wikipedia thoroughly, you will find dozens of articles about indie rpgs and their importance as well as mmorpgs, roleplaying, and the mission to make these things more noteable on wikipedia itself. Keep in mind the history of the game as well. Since this summer 1,000 members. There are online games with far less of a member base than this game still on wikipedia. Linked tracker refers UNIQUE HITS FROM SEARCH ENGINES! Would be impossible to receive 42 google hits and 600 "click throughs".
- Comment no, that's simply not true. Your claim that it's the "Best of a genre" is unprovable, and uncited. Second you misunderstand what "google hits" means. That's the number of TOTAL PAGES which mention the subject(found by google). It has nothing to do with how many people click this or that, just a measure of how noteworth it is in the context of other internet sites. For comparison "Everquest" gets 15,900,000 hits, and everquest is not even web-based(internet based, but not web) i kan reed 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is incorrect. Citation within article proves that it is the top ranked of the genre. I do not know why you say it is uncited...seems every argument made so far has been on fallicious reasoning. You've refused to share your sources for the information you are using to prosecute so how can anything you say be disproven when it seems to be made up off the top of your mind without any evidence? Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what "facts" I have to prove, and google stuff you can just check yourself., and as I've said, I did check your links, and, among other concerns, "ultimatetopsites", which I'm assuming is the reference in question, as you didn't specify, is not a noted authority on the subject, nor has it been updated in nearly 5 years. None of this is "off the top of my head" either. The things I'm mentioning are part of wikipedia policy. Articles are to verifiable, and it's generally accepted that they be notable as well, by a defined set of guidelines. The policy pages in question may be found at WP:N(for this one also see WP:WEB) and WP:V. Please don't think I'm on some sort of "witch hunt" against you, it just seems you have not yet read this guidlines, as none of your replies have been (as far as I can tell) with regards to the actual reasons for nomination. i kan reed 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google stuff? This is why in a court trial evidence must be submitted to make an accusation. I've "googled stuff" and came up with different responses. I would like to know how one could arrive at yours is what I'm asking. Yes I have read the pages you are linking me, too. Site is complient. Ignorance of site content and nature does not make it uncomplient. Comment about your "hasn't been updated in 5 years" was also false! Right on bottom of referenced page states "Last Update: November 14 2006, 6:13 PM PT". This is the 3rd time you have expressed a conclusion that was either false, or hidden behind a shroud of secrecy whereas others cannot duplicate your results. It is getting tiresome. Xander756(User_talk:Xander756) 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bit crufty, too, and a miss on WP:WEB.--WaltCip 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.