Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilization Fanatics Center

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Fanatics Center

edit

Non-notable Internet forum and website. Fails WP:WEB. This site is linked to from the official game website, but merely linking to it is trivial. It has also apparently won some obscure web awards, but none of them are well-known or notable. It is nowhere near as notable as a site such as Serebii.net, and that was deleted. --- RockMFR 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to your 'Non-notable': How huge and active does a website have to be in order to qualify as 'notable'? We aren't talking about a grandma's webpage here. This site is very large and very alive, big enough to qualify to be in an Encyclopedia. --- Sahkuhnder 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability has nothing to do with being a certain size or level or activity, it's about being referenced in notable 3rd party sources - please read WP:WEB. Mdwh 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My comment was posed as a question as the site's high Alexa rating was under discussion at the time of my comment. Upon more a more detailed reading of the rules I withdraw this comment. Numerous examples of the site being referenced in notable 3rd party sources have since been provided. --- Sahkuhnder 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your undated edit of your above comment: The civ4.com homepage, on the main homepage itself has a whole column of hosted, downloadable mods on the left hand side. Many of these mods are direct content transfered straight from CFC, where the authors of the mods first put out their work for the opinion of CFC members and have active threads for bug fixes, improvement ideas, etc. The Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords homepage has a similar page. --- Sahkuhnder 08:13, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your undated edit of your above comment: One of the awards you quickly dismiss as "obscure" is from the The International Association of WebMasters and Designers. They have over 450k members from around the world. The Golden Web Award from their organization is hardly obscure in any manner. --- Sahkuhnder 08:29, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your Serebii.net reference: Your logic is again badly flawed. The first nomination for the deletion of the Serebii.net page was "no consensus". The ruling for the second nomination stated "There isn't a single word in this article, however, that is verifiable, though. Nothing has ever been written about this site in a reputable source..." You claim CFC is "nowhere near as notable as a site such as Serebii.net". If notability has nothing to do with being a certain size or level or activity, as seems to be the standard used to dismiss many of the claims of CFC notability, and notability is solely based on external factors such as being written about and having external hosting of the site's content, then why would you make your ridiculous claim that Serebii.net is more notable than CFC? Based on what factors or criteria? Based on what evidence? If you make a claim you should be able to either back in up (verifiable seems important to Wikipedia), or else withdraw your incorrect and misleading statement. --- Sahkuhnder 21:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to that logic, we would have over 18,000 website articles here... --- RockMFR 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your response has flawed logic, i.e. - if we can't include them all we shouldn't include any??? Just because there is no need to include all 18,000 doesn't mean the largest and most active aren't enough of a cultural phenomenon to be worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. --- Sahkuhnder 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa test is only to add supportive evidence. A high Alexa rating alone neither signifies importance or actual legimate traffic (ie. link farms). But a high Alexa rating for a legitimate site that is up for AfD means we should take a closer look to see if it passes WP:WEB before discounting its importance. Caknuck 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Definitely one of the major Civ sites, at least in the top two or three, still high-traffic even though the series is getting long in the tooth. --Groggy Dice 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — THe site is indeed directly linked by the game website. However I really feel this article reads like an advertisment. -- lucasbfr talk 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic notability. Articles on fan sites are getting out of control. The way we're going, at some point for every article on a popular TV show, video game, pop star, cartoon series, we'll have a separate article on Wikipedia about the main fan website which reads "this fansite was founded in 200x and it pays tribute to X pop culture thingy and is linked to from X's main website by X's marketing guys", "it has 3 forums and 8 subforums. here is the list", "here are some fun stuff that the forum posters get up to and some running jokes we like - it's a subculture!". Wikipedia is not a web directory. Leave aside how many visitors the site is claiming to get - Does the website do anything encyclopedically notable? Does it have any impact on the wider culture? I mean even things like Fark and YTMND have more of a notable impact than these fansites. And yes, I'm a Civ fan and have even used this website several times. (sidenote: Civ 4 sucks though.) Bwithh 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it does have an impact on the wider culture in teh sense that the developers do interact with it. You would write about the influences on a major artist, so why not a game developer? Krupo 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, please note that it has been about a decade (~8 years). Krupo 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! This site is one of the biggest fan-sites on the net (and maybe the biggest) and one of the biggest forums on the net! Threads: 178,088, Posts: 4,547,146, Members: 102,994. Keep it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.63.150 (talk • contribs)
  • keep if it is one of the biggest fan sites on the web then i agree it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.5.122 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete I don't think this site warrants the level of detail in the article, but I'm not strongly supportive of deleting it. That said, it should be added to the external links of the games where it is appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia contains endless information on every South Park episode known to mankind and yet we want to delete one for a very large fansite for a very popular game? Godwynn 18:31, 30 October 2006
  • Keep The site is directly linked to from the official site, has a great number of collaborators on its article, is third on the a Google search for "civilization" (behind only the official sites), and most importantly, provides content other sites do not recieve through its great amount of added playstyles in both multi-player resources, and single-player modpacks. It is among the top 200 message boards on the web (according to BigBoards). To Delete it would be to remove a very instrumental new dimension of playing. --YbborT 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Sahkuhnder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Seems only fair that if apolyton and 2chan have their own wiki articles. I believe it is fair that CFC has their own --Maj_Kusanagi
  • Keep. How many websites can claim over a hundred thousand users? How many websites can claim an average of 500-1000 users on at a time? Plus a massive modding community. It might not be well known outside the internet, but it's one of the biggest boards in the world; in the top 200, according to Big Boards, as cited above. It's one of the biggest game fansites in the world. It's been, for better or for worse, a decently sized force on the internet. Obviously there are bigger, but if that were the only criteria for deletion, then we'd only have one page on wikipedia, "The Universe", and it would be rather too long for my tastes. It is significant enough to merit a wiki page. North King 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Many people have worked hard to create an excellently informative page about an exetremely popular internet forum/fansite. After seeing some of other Wiki-articles that are not up for deletion I'm horrified by the idea that such an excelently written and informative article could be singaled out for deletion. Nc-1701a 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)(nc-1701)[reply]

— Nc-1701a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Essentially passes criterion #2 of WP:WEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.57.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - The page needs some edits, like all young pages, but the site is notable and should be kept. The game developers link directly to it, so it's of great significance and it's closing in on 10 years of age - definitely not a little flash in the pan but something worth documenting given the amount of history that has unfolded there (game developers, especially for the games this site caters to, have publicly stated that fan involvement has driven their work). It's distressing that just because 1. it's about games, and 2. it's a website it gets such shoddy treatment. Smacks of encyclo-snobbery. Krupo 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see why it's called the "Fanatics" center now.... ;) --- RockMFR 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because someone stands up to you and questions your logic? If you made this demeaning, unhelpful remark on a CFC Forum you may well draw a moderator and receive a warning for trolling. Am I being unfair? Then please tell me how your snide opinion in any way contributed to the discussion, or if you prefer, show this site's true tolerance for diversity of opinion and just delete this comment.... ;). Helpful reading: Your own Etiquette and Civility pages. --mossmonster 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was in response to the flood of obvious meatpuppets who have invaded this discussion. --- RockMFR 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote From the rules at WP:BITE "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet." If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary." --- Sahkuhnder 11:44, 05 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, because I only recently became a member (see my edits on Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords dated 24 Oct), before, yes, once again, before, you started this deletion lynching makes me an "obvious" "meatpuppet"? Is calling other wiki users derogatory names a part of your duties as an editor, or is just a personal issue you need to try to get control of? My comments are detailed and make specific points. Instead of name calling how about acting like someone in authority should, including welcoming new members and using this page for its intended purpose and actually addressing the valid issues that are brought up for discussion. --- Sahkuhnder 07:56, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RockMFR - Please stop your total disregard for the very rules you are supposed to be enforcing. What about violating WP:BITE? You make a demeaning insult. You get called out for it. Your response is... to make another demeaning insult. And none of your fellow editors or longtime members says a word about your despicable behavior. If you were a newcomer to this site and saw how people are treated here would you bother to stick around and contribute? All of you editors who haven't spoke up, don't ever wonder again why your little web creation here is held in such low regard by the academic community. Single purpose account quote: "...some treat single purpose accounts as having less 'say', though this has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere." Shame on all of you. --mossmonster 01:03, 05 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Marginally passes WP:WEB's criterion 2 and has a fairly strong Alexa rating and forum membership. Also, it contains more than simply a bulletin board, and it is the largest fan site of a highly notable game. It should be trimmed down and given a partial rewrite to get rid of advertisement, however. - Bootstoots 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am longtime member of the CFC Forums. I appreciate its value to those who use it, but it is of no major consequence to the mainstream world. The article reads like an advertisement and frankly, none is needed. CFC stands on its own. I do not feel that a wikipedia article adds anything of value to Wikipedia itself nor detracts from CFC if the article were withdrawn. All that it is doing is taking up space, needlessly. My main point of contention is that if you know enough about CFC to look it up on Wikipedia, you know enough about it to not need to look it up, at all. --JohnHSOG 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— JohnHSOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Weak Keep - It's got official Firaxis recognition, making it approximatelt 500% more notable than your average fansite. It's linked to directly from the Firaxis site, which as far as I'm concerned is as official as you can get. What more evidence that this is more notable than a normal site? Messages from God in the sky? The Kinslayer 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it makes it under WP:WEB and it is clearly one of the largest players as fan sites go. TheRanger 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fact it is recognized and visted by the developers of two games that have articles on wikipedia, along with the fact that it has over 100,000 members is enough for me. MarineCorps 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am longtime member of the CFC Forums. Respectfully, I see only a negative relationship with a site like Wikipedia. I trust the posts on CFC because they have undergone true peer review, in other words comments are not deleted but are discussed by other fellow members with their own visible reputations, and then each member is free to judge for themselves. CFC is not a tyranny of whoever has the (temporary) last word or of a particular editor's politically correct agenda or personal opinion. Please see RockMFR's "fanatics" comment above for an example of an attitude that wouldn't be welcome at CFC. As JohnHSOG put it "CFC stands on its own.", and it stands taller without any association to a site of highly questionable accuracy and trustworthiness. --mossmonster 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— mossmonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Weak delete The evidence in the article (which is the standard at WP:WEB) is that the site just missed winning an award and is large. No real evidence of independent reviews or the distribution of the content by other sites. In other words, it doesn't meet the WP:WEB standards. I have it on my bookmarks, but that isn't a WP:WEB standard. WP:WEB also doesn't authorize the top N sites of a type for any N or any type. Since it doesn't meet our guidelines, it should be deleted. GRBerry 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever looked at the official Civ4 and GalCiv2 sites, as they are full of mods from CFC. Not only that but the bug hunting and game improvements/new game features that come from the CFC forums, as discussed by game developers that are members of CFC, get added directly into new game patches and game upgrades. There is lots of distribution of CFC content if you just look for it, and as CFC content improves and becomes part of the games themselves, every time the games themselves are independently reviewed a small piece of CFC content is reviewed as well. --- Sahkuhnder 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at them in the context of this AFD discussion. I have one bookmarked, the other I've looked at but not bookmarked. Mods aren't really that convincing, as they seem to me primarily the creation of the individual creator, not any particular fansite. The GOTMs being included or reviewed elsewhere would definitely be CFC specific content distributed/reviewed elsewhere. Of course, best practice if you are aware of such is to introduce citations or other references to the article, but we generally will evaluate evidence introduced here despite the WP:WEB requirement that the evidence be in the article. GRBerry 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the content is the creation of the individual creator, no fansite creates anything on its own, but is just a repository of the work of many actual people. Mods may not be convincing to you, but to those of us who play the game they are huge, often to the point of creating what is very near to a whole new gaming experience. Do you know the amount of skill and time it takes to create a modpack? Does some content qualify as 'acceptable' while other content like mods just gets disregarded? Look at the massive number of people who download game mods(including scenarios/new units/custom maps/rule changes/etc.) before you say "mods aren't really that convincing". I read the rules and didn't see the part anywhere where some content counts and some content doesn't. It just seems very wrong that many people simply added their opinion without knowing how large and active CFC is, that it's linked by the offical games homepages, that the game designers are active members, that CFC helps debug the games, that new units, rules and features are discussed and added due to CFC, and that a great deal of CFC content is posted elsewhere for download by those of us who play the games. I guess all that acutal research would be too much work. Easier to just wallow in ignorance and smugly type "Delete - Non-notable/No external content/It's just a forum fansite/etc." without knowing the slightest bit about CFC or the influence it has on both the games and the players. --- Sahkuhnder 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mods for other games (for Civ? I dunno) that have articles here at Wikipedia, so a mod can be notable for an article all by itself. To me, mods aren't that convincing for a particular fansite because they aren't strongly enough tied to any that site. The same mod could have been posted to multiple sites, so which one should Wikipedia credit for its redistribution at another site? That is why I was looking for CFC specific content that was redistributed, because that would be solid evidence for keeping the CFC article, as opposed to an article on the mod or on some other site. As a side note, I think even if the article gets kept much of the current text fails to adhere to our policy requiring verifiability from reliable sources. So the best possible evidence to introduce here is independent published articles from reliable sources that are primarily about CFC. GRBerry 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Web Award is the sort of evidence that meets our standards. Better yet would be to find the original publication by the awarding body, but given the nature of the web I'm not sure that such a page will be available anymore. Opinion changing. GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why should this page be deleted? It is a link to a huge website and forum which offers valuable help to any Civilization player. A few of its members were invited to Beta test Civ4, and one of the mods created there has even been included in one of the patches. Even without all that, it has a place in general internet history; being the inventor of the 'Democracy Game' and suspect as featuring the first 'Game of the Month', something which has been included in many other gaming forums. The off-topic forum on its own is worthy of being mentioned here, with deep philosophical and political discussions, as well as things like the 'Giant Radioactive Monkey'. I do not see why wikipedia wants to prevent people from learning about this site. Does the page take up that much server space? Lord Olleus 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Lord Olleus[reply]

— Lord Olleus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Being linked to by another website, no matter how official it is, is not grounds for notability. HYPERLINKS DO NOT EQUAL NOTABILITY. --- RockMFR 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your all caps comment is indeed impressive, I have to ask if you even bothered to go and look at the official game homepage site(s) for yourself? Actually, of course you didn't or you would have seen that they are far more than just HYPERLINKS back to CFC and that they host CFC content themselves in the form of mods, etc., as well as actual changes to the standard game in the form of CFC upgrades, improvements and de-bugging efforts. WP:WEB criterion 3 for Notability clearly states "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". The official game homepages are well known, and they directly distribute CFC content independent of CFC itself. Really, go have a look for yourself as hopefully your future comments can then be better informed and thus complete and correct. --- Sahkuhnder 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:While it hasn't stood the test of time yet, there are no signs that it will stop growing in the near future, and it is already CFC is host to the largest Civilization forum. I'm 100% certain that there is much more questionable content on Wiki that hasnt been put up for deletion, than a 100,000+ members website. Azzaman333 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Azzaman333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Discussion above with Sahkuhnder elicited a reference to their awards. I believe the Golden Web Award from the International Association of Web Masters and Designers meets WP:WEB. (Although technically it should be added to the article per WP:WEB, that standard is not the usual here at AFD.) GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. After Apolyton, Civfanatics is the only other civ site that I would consider (just barely) worthy of an article. That said, the article needs to make a stronger case for notability, and the narrow focus puts it on the borderline. --Alan Au 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Only fair considering it has over 100K members. And recognition by Firaxis. Why delete it? --Bluemofia 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Bluemofia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep: RockMFR, consider this. I worked on Civ4 (the primary game both CFC and Apolyton focus on) as a scenario designer. I worked on the sequel as well (both sites also focus on this). You want CFC/Apolyton content that is redistributed? Fine. My "Ages of Discovery" scenario was uploaded to both CFC and Apolyton as content of those sites. Now, the scenario 6 months later is spread across the web being redistributed. Also, this CFC and Apolyton content has been published in magazines (most notable July 2006 Strategy Gamer & November 2006 Computer Games Weekly) with other CFC & Apolyton exclusive content. Jon Shafer, Firaxis scenario designer, has released exclusive official content on both CFC & Apolyton (WW1 & South-East Asia scenarios) which are also now spread across the web. If you didn't jump to such a fast conclusion "Oh it's a fan-site delete it!" BEFORE looking up the facts first, you wouldn't look like such a fool now. Dale 202.10.86.147 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RockMFR: I usually don't say it publically that I worked on the games, and it's not my place to cite my own work in an article such as this. That is not only delusional, but very arrogant. On the other hand it does mention "Fall from Heaven" and "SevoMod" which are actually more popular than my own. It also mentions the fact some mods got onto the game's main website too. Not forgetting the mention in the article that some mods got into Civ4 patches (try to tell my THAT'S not widely distributed and CFC custom content!). But aside from the mods, don't you think the site that invented Democracy Games, Inter-site Democracy Games, Never Ending Story and the Civ4 Hall Of Fame warrants notable status on that content alone? I do. WP mentions other inventors, why not this one? So it's a web community? Dale
  • Keep - Since we have a reference in a book [1]. The article should be trimmed of non-notable/forum specific/unverifiable claims such as the NES, though. Mdwh 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN fan site, just looking to promote itself. Avador 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The article fails WP:BIO by technicality—the only link to a third-party source is for an award that the site did not win, since it finished second, and the reference for the book is to a civfanatics URL. A true third-party link to the book should be provided. Additionally, the article should be cleaned up. I'm not sure that forum rules are exactly encyclopedic content. On the whole, though, I'm willing to concede that enough exists in the article—or could be added—that the article warrants inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you mean - how do you link to a book? Details of a book alone are sufficient (since for the most part, books obviously aren't online), I just provided the URL as some extra information. The URL is not meant to be the reference, it's the book itself which should be the reference. Mdwh 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes notability requirements, could use some more sources but that's not a reason to delete, just to clean up. -- nae'blis 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because recognizable web site. --164.107.92.120 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RockMFR - Nonsense you claim? There are a billion people on the Internet, and only one of them would want to add evidence of this page having a "flood of obvious meatpuppets". And what an astronomically amazing coincidence, this planted comment is very stereotypically "meatpuppet", comes from your school, and was made 6 minutes prior to your logging on and making a comment under your RockMFR name. And of course you deny it, nobody expected you to confess to your guilt. Keep up your good work here on Wikipedia. --- Sahkuhnder 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this user has made quite a number of contributions on various issues since before this AfD was made [2]. Firstly this means it seems unlikely it was RockMFR unless he's been editing anonymously too for a period of time. Secondly, it means this account isn't a Single Purpose Account, and unlikely to be a "meatpuppet", so even if it was RockMFR, it's a rather ineffective fake. Mdwh 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This account seems to have been blocked before for violating the rules. Doesn't that also fit perfectly for a puppet account that a coward is using to hide behind and do mischief as? Is it in any way hard to believe that this guy had been editing anonymously for a period of time? As long as he continued to get away with it why would he stop? It would be interesting to check the posting time/date stamps with this account and see how well they mesh with the four accounts RockMFR admits are him. I only glanced at them and already caught both accounts doing the exact the same, meatpuppet=Keep, RockMFR=Delete to the same obscure page, Black Bitch. Yeah, I'm sure this is just another coincidence too. I guess he didn't think any lowly "meatpuppet" like me would ever catch his deception. --- Sahkuhnder 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth would he use this anonymous IP to make votes opposite to his vote? I mean, I can understand the claim for this AfD, to support the accusation of meatpuppets (though we both know it's true that this AfD has been linked from the forum in question anyway), but no one has made any such accusations on the Black Bitch article. Why would anyone do such a thing? Mdwh 00:48, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civilization_Fanatics_Center&oldid=1146648485"