Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FunOrb

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, consensus is that the sources found do meet the WP:WEB notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FunOrb

Is not notable. There are millions of sites just like this, and the only real hype it has gotten is from the runescape community. If you google it, the hits are from runescape based, fansites. BUT, based on the april 8 poll, even the community at runescape does not play it, and has only heard of it from runescape itself. I think this article would be best merged into Jagex Warrush 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:WEB. *Merge Per RS Ren. With jagex, then split off when you feel it's appropriate. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is sufficiently notable for its own article. It has made it onto a fair number of news websites. It is the second major release from one the UK's largest independent developer by staff level, and they intend to go into the mobile phone games market meaning the brand is greater than for just a gaming arcade. It is also interesting because of it uses underlying Java technology as opposed to the more common Flash. I think the article has a fair amount of room for expansion, such as more detailed information on games, more history and information from interviews and more games as they are released. If we merged it with the Jagex article then it'd probably soon have to be split anyway. --RS Ren (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a great site, more organized that many "Arcade" game sites. You have to give it time, it is currently developing. --Ballyscoff (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Please read WP:DP before using articles for deletion. Warrush[reply]

Comment Articles relating to FunOrb in the media: [1][2][3][4]. --RS Ren (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Theres NOTHING notable about this site. There have been java scripted games before it, and theres been mobile phone arcade games as well. Just because Jagex releases it doesn't mean it should have its own article. Its not even in the top 200 on google search, online games. Until this site becomes larger, or does something worth mentioning, it should stay on Jagex. Warrush

Merge There is nothing particularly unique or special about this site, merge into a smaller article in Jagex. The only reason that it is popular in the first place is that it has a connection to Jagex, so that's where it should go. BinaryWeapon (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ballyscoff's keep arguments. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The web notability guidelines suggest, "...web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The articles on Gamasutra and Eurogamer are non-trivial third party reliable sources. It's not for us to judge if the site is unique or special. Two third party reliable news sources have decided it's worth of coverage, therefore it's appropriate for Wikipedia to cover. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but it also has to pass the notability content. Specifically, this stands out- Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. The news reports that have been displayed are that of Jagex releasing the site. Warrush
- I'm unfamiliar with the guidelines or policies you're referring to. I'd be interested in reading up on them. Can you direct me to them? — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) *Note- wp:n Warrush[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources cover the site in dedicated articles, that's what notability asks for and that's what it's got. Someoneanother 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another [5]. Someone another 05:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be 'millions' of web sites like this as stated by Warrush, but most of them are not covered by media which is why they are not suitable for Wikipedia. This site does have reliable sources, which I think is enough to be notable. Also, the web site is relatively new and may yet develop, and it would be a waste to delete or possibly even merge this article only to create the article again at a later date. Also Warrush, can you actually provide any examples of similar sites which have just as much media coverage but are not suitable for Wikipedia? If not, I see no reason to delete or even merge this article. gm_matthew (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is the point in which i'm making. As I have stated, this website is ONLY known for its affiliation with jagex and runescape, it is not known for its online hits or anything else for that matter. The "coverage" it is getting is from runescape fansites and/or business/game business sites stating it is being released. As WP:N states, an article is not notable if the sources are only about one event, and that event in this case is that jagex is releasing the site. Warrush

Keep - It's fairly notable, a google search returns up many media articles about the website unlike others. The article needs some work done on it, and it would be silly to delete it now in my opinion. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Author of the article. Warrush[reply]
Keep - FunOrb has only been out 4 months give it time to grow. FunOrb is a Jagex product and is linked to RuneScape, removing this would be bad for the Runescape Article and players wondering what FunOrb is. TehKittyCat (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Please read WP:DP before using articles for deletion. Warrush[reply]
Delete per Corvus, add one sentence to the Jagex article and wait a year. Alternatively, print it as a great little marketing brochure. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have to agree here. the article is about 4 months old so we need to give it time to expand. or we could just merge it with another article.--Hawkey131 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is continuing to get articles written about it in the gaming pressFlashNerdX (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2008 (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.