Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version)

< 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 of the debate was speedily deleted as the recreation of an AfDed article. --fvw* 23:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

edit
  • I created this new stub on the subject of a website that had earlier been deleted. The content is new and the circumstances have changed, but the article has been speedied under the "deleteagain" template. I therefore place it for discussion on this forum.
  • Keep and expand or merge useful content from editing history with GameSpot. The website has grown in popularity since the first debate in June. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Content is Identical in substance to a subset of the original article deleted by VfD vote - Recreation is a Speedy delete candidate and relisting violates the opinions of all who voted to delete the article. - Tεxτurε 15:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is simply incorrect. I wrote the article myself, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original content. The people who voted to delete the original article are entitled to their opinions, but listing a completely different article for deletion can hardly be held to violate their opinions; nor is disagreement per se any form of violation. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Facts:
        • 1st line (first two lines of original): Started by two guys from Gamespot.
        • 2nd line (first and second paragraph of original): For banned users form Gamespot.
        • 3rd line (Only sentence in third paragraph of original): Expanded in summer 2005.
        • Last line (Remaining two paragraphs of original): Now features...
      • This is a recreation of the original - down to the order of the information presented. - Tεxτurε 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact: I wrote the current article. I did not read the previous article. Please stop falsely claiming that the article is a recreation. It is not. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no opinion on whether the content is the same as the old article or not. However, based on current content, I see no significance or verifiability. Friday (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, previous VfD, and ongoing VfU discussion, which are nearly unanimous delete/keep deleted. Content is "new" in the sense that it's a summarization of the previously-deleted content (whether it was intended that way by Tony or not), and I fail to see which circumstances have changed – Alexa of 470,884 doesn't indicate any significant increase in popularity. android79 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, resonably popular gaming website, similar to IGN and Gamespot which are both accorded entries.Gateman1997 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first it was blue, then redlink, now blue again. Admins on delete/undelete wars again - bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Leave it here for processing - or delete and send to VfU - I don't care. But knock it off! --Doc (?) 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete via G4. If the recreation is as similar to the original as Texture suggests, Geogre's action in speedily deleting the recreation is appropriate per the deletion policy and the criteria for speedy deletion. It should be noted that to overcome the "substantially identical copy" clause of G4, a recreation must address those features of the original that were felt to be in contravention of WP policies and guidelines in the first place. The original version of this article was validly deleted via VfD principally because it so lacked notability (to use that much-maligned word) that it did not have independent sources that would adequately meet the verifiability requirements of this encyclopedia. WP:V, the heart and soul of an encyclopedia and one of WP's great trinity, regretably also appears to be the most ignored WP policy. To quote from that repository of good sense:
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher...
For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources...
Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information.
Not only does this article lack any such sources, no reason is given for us to believe that such sources might be available. It is useful to ask the following questions whenever one contemplates writing a WP article. Has someone written a paper on this subject (ie. in this case, the website "Systemwars.com")? Has it been the focus of a thesis or newspaper or journal or magazine report (even an online one)? Is it the subject of a book or a book chapter? If it is, the source should be provided and the contents of the article should state (only) what is verifiable per that source. But, if there are no sources, the article goes. WP:ISNOT a receptacle for unverified claims. It is not a collection of weblinks appended to blurbs. It is not the place for original research and claims. It is an encyclopedia.—encephalon 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB. It has sometimes been suggested to me that linking a website which is the subject of the article will suffice for WP:V. This represents a profound misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NOR. The reason that one is required to have independent, reputable sources for WP articles is that these sources represent the primary research and peer review that WP simply cannot do on its own. WP cannot conduct interviews. It cannot perform investigations to determine whether the claims people make on websites are true. It has no body of professional experts to peer-review and endorse its articles. It relies for all this on what is already published by organizations that can do all this. One cannot write the claim "Systemwars.com quickly grew its board to include 1000 members, and provide no source for it except a link to that very website. That would be like me claiming "My pet dog is the smartest dog on earth", and providing a link to my website which says "my pet dog is the smartest dog on earth." Now it may very well be true that the website has 1000 members and that my pet dog really is the smartest dog on earth, but to determine that without independent sources, WP would have to engage in original research—which we cannot do. That is why we need independent sources, whether we're writing about William Shakespeare, asthma, or quantum mechanics. Or Systemwars.com.—encephalon 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. verifiability problem. No third-party reputable references to reviews provided, i.e., looks like original research, insufficient to espablish notability. mikka (t) 18:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverifiable and non-notable. Forums with 1,000 users and Alexa rankings with six digits are not notable. FCYTravis 18:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation (per Texture's research). Protect from re-creation per overwhelming consensus on VfU to keep this deleted. The VfU debate is still current, by the way: Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Systemwars.com and this article should not have been re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not nearly as popular as Gamespot and IGN Pilatus 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and keep deleted. Well-written but totally non-notable. The version that I had deleted was a bunch of blathering "leet-speak." Other similar and equally non-notable versions followed. Changing to abstain, leaning toward keep. I was unaware that a respected user was responsible for the current edit. Sorry, 'bout that, Tony (blush). - Lucky 6.9 20:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if I, as a "respected user" and administrator create an article on My Sock Collection, you would judge its notability differently than you would an article on an anonymous user's sock collection? Someone's length of service to Wikipedia should have no bearing whatsoever on judgements of notability, verifiability and encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with FCYTravis. The contributor's status has nothing to do with the article in question being 1) currently discussed on VfU 2) a recreation of content deleted by consensus on VfD and 3) not notable in its own right. Have you retracted your opinion that it is "totally non-notable" based on finding that the target of your blush recreated the original content? - Tεxτurε 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete. Frankly, it should have been deleted the first time... Sasquatcht|c 22:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted the first time. So Delete. Again. And this time, when Deletion Review says, "Endorse decision, keep deleted," bloody well keep deleted unless it is actually a new article. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:00, 4 October 2005 (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/Systemwars.com_(second_version)&oldid=1138813124"