Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logo extraction puzzles
- 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 keep. Grandmasterka 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the creator's website game (the first in the list), which violates WP:nn Closercate1 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I came across this page in February this year when I was searching for trivia puzzles, as I was planning a trivia night. I wanted information about different types of trivia games and came across logo extraction. If there are issues about the creator's site being promoted, then cut those bits, but I still think the remainder is relevant. - Bricks J. Winzer 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but Wikipedia isn't a web directory or a search engine, it's an encyclopedia. The only basis for consideration is whether the article merits inclusion, not whether someone finds it useful (this is why we exclude computing FAQs and HOW-TOs, for example). Mindmatrix 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incomplete AfD now properly listed. Kevin_b_er 00:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is about "class of printed or online games", so I don't see how it is inherently promotional. Inappropriate advertising can and should be edited out of the article, as Bricks J. Winzer said above, but it's not a valid reason for deleting the whole article. Wmahan. 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see the issue with this. In practice my complaint would be that I would like to see the article enlarged. I will look over the links though. Nigel (Talk) 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It shouldn't matter who posted it. The article is worthwhile. Cochese8 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Logo. Excluding Wikipedia mirrors, there are less than 500 hits for logo extraction, and just a few for logo extraction puzzles. While this isn't a definitive measure, it does suggest that this topic doesn't necessarily merit its own article. Moreover, the two inline external links in the article don't meet the criteria for inclusion (but that's a separate argument). By the way, I agree with the comment that it doesn't matter who created the article, only whether the article is worth keeping in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The 500 hits for the search string are mostly from the Wikipedia article itself or reference websites the get their info from Wikipedia. After the first two entries in the article (posted by the creator who most certainly has ties to them), you have an entry about a printed article, of which there is no evident web proof and a broken link for FregTK game. That sounds pretty WP:NN to me. I'm glad everyone likes Katzen (see third delete on [[1]], but that shouldn't mean we keep all of his work. Closercate1 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you nominated the article for deletion, it's understood that you want to delete it, so you don't need to "vote" again. Wmahan. 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak kepp the notability is a bit tricky to establish via Google because these games might have names that don't involve the keyword "extraction". Still, if GAMES Magazine has picked it up, it has at least some notability. I disagree that the article is primarily designed to promote the creator's website and it's simply normal to have external links in an article that discusses a class of puzzles that first appeared online. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pascal.Tesson. Heimstern Läufer 08:18, 30 September 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.