Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loot ninja

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loot ninja

Borderline ad, and no evidence of meeting WP:WEB --fvw * 04:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that this is a borderline ad, and certainly needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. Not sure that this is cause for deletion, but certainly needs to be more neutral and encyclopedic. --MrShamrock (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB pretty comprehensively. Probably even a valid CSD A7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as vanity wikipedia page. No google news hits outside of the 3 from the Loot Ninja web site itself. Google web search turns up items such as Digg and Technocratti but I didn't see anything that comes close to meeting the WP:WEB requirements. —Noah 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Edited for NPOV. There are many other gaming blogs with much less web penetration with Wikipedia pages. Mjbanks (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable website. Appears to be a game review site built by a few friends trying to use wikipedia for publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see this being a legitimate article, but rather about the term in the (mmorpg) video gaming world, as in, those people who decide to take loot which isn't theirs to take. That said, I'd suggest a delete with a redirect to MMORPG. --Izno (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. If the resolution of the discussion is that the web site "Loot ninja" is not notable then Inzo's suggestion should be followed. There are valid references that loot ninja is a commonly used MMORPG term. —Noah 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ugh completely non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see this as a legit page, from alexa ratings and general exposure to video games / game industry the web site and wiki entry seem valid as an up & coming site as a gaming blog. Site exploration shows everything in the Wiki entry to be factual, there are many similar entries for other sites of this type in Wikipedia.--Willieonglock 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding undated comment was added at 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that User:Willieonglock has no Wikipedia edits other than the comment on this AfD. —Noah 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to start somewhere. I'm an amateur game designer and familiar with the subject at hand, both being a Loot Ninja and the website Loot-Ninja.com, which is the article in question.--Willieonglock 13:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be prudent for you then to read up on WP:Conflict of interest. --Izno (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Izno, I see no conflict of interest from my comments. As stated above Loot Ninja serves 2 definitions. 1. In a MMOG someone who steals treasure/loot that is not rightfully theirs (both fun and annoying, do try). 2. Loot-Ninja.com a video game website. I would have considered being familiar with the site, video games, and looting would only point out that there is a level public awareness to serve the wikipedia entry. I'm still learning about being a contributor/editor to WP but I am suprised to find sites like Civilization Fanatics Center, GameZombie and Wazup having entries while there is an issue here.--Willieonglock 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments show that you have an innate conflict of interest (however much you temper it with self reason and such).
Next then is this sentence here: "I would have considered being familiar with the site, video games [...] would only point out that there is a level public awareness [...]." — Being familiar with an entity does not make that entity notable by the definitions of Wikipedia which say that you must be able to support that claim to notability by producing reliable secondary sourcing which goes into the article topic in detail (another guideline you should have a look at is WP:WEB, a sub-notability guideline).
If you are surprised by their existence, have a look to see if they have anything which makes them notable in those senses, whether included in the article or found by searching the Internet (see also WP:OTHERSTUFF). If they do not, they have the same problem as the article at hand, and thus could also be considered appropriate for deletion and would thus probably be welcome at WP:Articles for deletion. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:COI cannot be attributed to Willieonglock from one simple post. He didn't even vote. WP:AGF Kallimina (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of fact that he has COI, whether or not he !votes. I was assuming good faith, and almost commented on the fact that he didn't !vote one way or the other, but rather left us to decide. Have a little good faith yourself. :) --Izno (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I detect at least a couple of slices of spam if not a whole tin. Are there notable blogs? Maybe. Is this one? I doubt it. (On a side point, is that logo supposed to look like a South Park Ninja?) Peridon (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria A7 (yes, I know the AfD is four days in already.) Article does not indicate how this website is important in the slightest. Marasmusine (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (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.