Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point of Existence (2nd nomination)

< 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. See AfD talk page. --Durin 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Existence

edit

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Blatantly fails WP:V, WP:RS. Looks like its probably original research as well. Wickethewok 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Do you guys have nothing better to do with your time than troll the Wiki looking to cause trouble? PoE is a very legit site and your crusade to pick on this team and others is disrespectfull. I would like to add that PoE is an organization that add added value to Dice and EA games. PoE has won countless awards and has been features multiple times in magazines such as PC Gamer. The fact that the this is even being discussed makes Wiki less legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.119.118 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um? Why delete it? Your wiki site probably gets alot more hits because of PoE, PoE is huge and shouldn't be considered for deletion, unless of course you have personal issues which you shouldn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.87.77 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 19:49:30
    • its the most popular mod for the single most popular first person military shooter on the pc, why would anyone delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.115.19 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 20:06:28
      • If that's the case, then it should be easy for you to cite lots of articles written and published about it in books, magazines, journals, and suchlike, and thus satisfying the WP:SOFTWARE criteria should be a piece of cake. So please do. Uncle G 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What needs to be done? Do you need links to the articles or links to EA or a ref to articles writen or to awards or what? I have never heard of such nonsense as this attack against the PoE team.RobRoy78 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]

http://poe1.pointofexistence.com/POE/PC_Gamer_157.jpg (PC Gamer article) http://poe1.pointofexistence.com/Prozac/pcgames_article.jpg (PC Games (German) article) http://www.totalbf2.com/page.php?do=previewspoe (TotalBf2.com previews PoE2) http://www.pmods.net/ReadArticle.php?IdArt=150 (PMods.net previews PoE2 (French)) That's just a quick list of some recent articles about this modification.Seigman 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD and four edits to the article in question)[reply]

  • COPYVIO - Just thought I should point out that this article is also heavily a copy/paste copyright violation of here and here. Wickethewok 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As a copyvio per Wickethewok above Wildthing61476 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete As the Project Manager of the Point of Existence Development Team we gave written permission for our story line and information to be posted on Wikipedia website. I'm one of the original editors of the POE article and I have granted permission for our site info to be posted here. We have numerous magazine articles from PC Gamer, PC Action, and including online websites. Our work is non-profit and is all done for free to the community of PC Gamers that download our game. We would appreciate if this is reviewed for what it is, an article that pertains to a international development team from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland that are able to come together as a team and provide something for free to the world. Just like Wikipedia is free, so is our game. Sincerely Tom Patterson Tvpatterson 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)tvpatterson (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Being an avid gamer and clan leader, i am always looking at games to keep my clan active and happy. PoE 2 has given us so much that it would be criminal to remove their page from wiki. The PoE 2 team have spent nearly a year making the MOD for no money, just the love of what they do and to see so many gamers enjoy their work. All this needs IMHO is some common sense to see this page causes no problems to the general public and is non offensive in any way. The team deserve this page to exist.Chef uk 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]
  • Delete reeks of vanity, lacks verification.-- danntm T C 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete PoE is a storyline based modification for Battlefield 2. Why you guys are trying to delete this is beyond me. Apparently you guys have nothing else better to do. [User:0wn4g3] 04:16, 30 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.249.60 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. This is an extremely popular mod. This would be akin to deleting the wiki articles for Counter Strike, Team Fortress, or Natural Selection. To me, this seems like a pointless vendetta grudge. I see a lot of stuff going on about vanity, software, and the like. Of course wikipedia style guide says that if you see something you don't like, you don't delete it, you make it better. Prose would be the exact word they use. In fact, the only reflection of vanity I see here is a pathetic "who can drop the most wikipedia jargon" penis measuring contest amongst the people recommending a delete vote. You may not like it, but what reeks of vanity is the bleating and chest-pounding of the users here. Add to that the borderline stalking of other users including the helpful tips as to what contributions they've made in a sad and transparent effort to somehow slander their position (and yes, I know that "per" (look, I can drop the jargon too!) what wikipedia is not, this isn't an experiment in democracy so their opinions may somehow count "less" in your eyes towards consensus) and you have what is sadly becoming endemic to Wikipedia: the hard nosed clique of "editors" who wear their barnstars like a crooked sherriff's badge and attempt to enforce their own mishmash ideas of what wikipedia should be, no questions or protests. The preceeding signed statement was made by Professor Ninja 11:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC). (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions number about 700, and that's not including my old account who's username and password I forgot that probably had about double that.)[reply]
p.s.: Most of the editors here blatantly fail WP:PDNBTN. Just thought I'd remind you all of that. Cause I don't think you'll be offering up your accounts for speedy deletion. I'm sure deleting this article for a few minor violations instead of rewriting it is acceptable, but sacrificing your own accounts instead of improving your behaviour isn't. Think about that. You have the people here who want to keep this article, they've even asked you what needs to be done, and you ignore them instead of helping them. The copyright holder to the story text in question gives you permission, and you ignore it. Seriously. Think about that. If you're too lazy to improve the prose yourselves, why not tell the people here, in the discussion, who want to keep the article, what needs to be done to keep it, hmm? Professor Ninja 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - As per Professor Ninja. User had made clear all points that need to be said. It is obvious that the nomination of this article for AfD is, as Professor Ninja said, "a vendetta grudge". 69.124.143.230 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete who says it should be deleted, whoever does should be a man (or woman???) and post their though on the POE2 forum, even our forum, and see the responce, im sorry but you are A greatly out numbered B have issues when there is somthing out there bigger than you ego C you fail to read that referanced site insted you just saw it and posted, if this comes down to a vote, i think wikipedia should make you lot pay for the bandwith, you will lose. and if you whant a referance to the fact that you will lose then be my guest and post in the poe2 forums listed above or our www.clanptg.com or bf2s site, where ever you go you will lose. save your self some time/money/humiliation and giv in. trust me we will forget you sooner or later. [PTG]shogun [PTG]PR and Clan Awearness officerPTGshogun 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)82.133.97.114 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — 82.133.97.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete unless the specific concerns from the templates on the page and comments on the talk page are addressed. At this time, the article does not cite reliable sources. Khatru2 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete^^^^ so the actual makers and offical website are not a reliable source? if not then what is? if george bush or tony blair came in to the room and said there is such a thing a a president or primeminister would that count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTGshogun (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Note to closer of AfD: Account has 3 edits, two of which are to this page).[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE, Spam, copyright violations and finally Vanity .--M8v2 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note-Many of the people adding to this page, the project page are anons and new users who's only contributes are to this page and battlefield related pages. Also many of the people here from info provided in their comments are completely new to wikipedia and are only learning of it now.--M8v2 03:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies WP:SOFTWARE, and it is not commercial software. Also, where is the spam? Where are the copyright violations? I see very limited vanity that should be edited out, rather than deleting the entire article. Living Ghost 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Care to cite the copyright violations? (or the spam but I'll ignore that for now, it's a baseless accusation) While you may have a point about vanity we are working on that point, a failure that does not necessitate deletion. 69.124.143.230 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually we have already up above read WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHEM. Let's look at these, shall we?

WP:SOFTWARE: And I quote, "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:"
Therefore POE meets WP:SOFTWARE. WP:SOFTWARE is no longer a concern. POE has been written about in magazines. Therefore, notable for software. Any further statement involving its violation of WP:SOFTWARE will be met with a simple copy and paste of this paragraph.
WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This one is bullshit. You guys are obviously stacking the deck against POE. All of the problems with this article in fact stem from the fact that it does not cite its sources. You then extrapolate this into WP:S and WP:RS claiming that because it does not cite its sources, it therefore does not have reliable sources (a truism) and because WP:S requires that it be written about in those sources, you're attempting to chuck a WP:S violation in with it (another truism).
WP:VERIFIABILITY The only problem here is a lack of citations. Once the magazine articles are reproduced (I have seen them myself with POE featured in them) then this is no problem. The article is verifiable, it is just not verified. There is a difference.

So what do we see? We see that the only problem here is that the articles in question have not been linked. Instead, you guys use that to pile on multiple accusations and when the people who want to keep this article has to be done, you toss some abbreviated jargon down at them and say "find out for yourselves." You guys, especially you, Whispering, are terrible editors. You bite the newcomers (and please, fuck the whole single purpose account, we all got into wikipedia editing by finding an article on here we had an interest and knowledge in, these newcomers are working to save something they care about and rather than acting like meat puppets indefensibly defending something non-defensible, they are COMING TO YOU AND ASKING FOR SPECIFICS THAT YOU WANT DONE. Here's what's going to happen. If you want it changed, rather than the textual diarrhea that is the jargon you spew forth every time somebody asks you for specifics, respond with specifics. Because I can find no other reason except for bad faith to assume that in the 140 characters you have written in reply to this AfD, you haven't found the ability to, for example, write "If you would only link to the magazine articles that have written about POE, you would have satisfied all criteria." You know what's crazy? That's only 115 characters! You would have actually saved time by being helpful instead of being an obstructionist. Same goes for all the other editors here. When it is empirically verifiable that being helpful and not violating WP:Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers would have taken less effort than doing what you're doing, I can't help but assume bad faith on your part. And when I assume bad faith, I start going through edits finding every time it's ever been empirically verifiable that you have put more effort into obstructing something than helping, and therefore committing bad faith (and god knows what other breaches) and then I gotta kick it up to RfC. And I don't want to do that because the evidence I dragged out in an RfC was already responsible for an indefinite ban on a user, and I don't like getting people banned at all, for any reason, because I don't believe in it. But I do believe in giving bad faith violators a slap on the wrist. So. Please. Next time, take the time and effort to write out specifics because as we have seen without a shadow of a doubt, not only is it more helpful, not only does it take less effort, but it pisses less people off too, so we can only assume good faith. Professor Ninja 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, talk about more absolute empirical evidence of the bad faith of the deletionist editors. Took me literally five seconds of googling to find [this]. I'll think I'll post it on the main page and thereby remove all your objections since this SOURCE that is VERIFIABLY CITED fulfills WP:SOFTWARE. Enjoy making more bad faith harassments elsewhere. Professor Ninja 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a good thing to do. Rallying all the fanboys to help defend this article won't do much good. PoE2 is a great mod but this article is terrible and doesn't provide much information about the mod itself. If you don't want this article to get deleted, please improve the quality of it. Unicyclopedia 06:01, 4 October 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/Point_of_Existence_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1306172744"