Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WolfTeam (Video Game)

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. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WolfTeam (Video Game)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Wolf Team (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The game is very notable, with many players. There are many servers, and official website, and thousands of players. The authors page shouldn't have been deleted either, because they are also the makers of the games Gunbound, which has an article. This is not a good reason for deletion. I have properly marked the article as a stub, and will have other add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Techdude300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Not another MMORPG trying to assert notability with no sources present with a very strong sense of COI. MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Rally cry from the WolfTeam forumites to defend their article! MuZemike (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trying" to make it "another" game. This is a valid game, with valid players, and if people want to find out more about it, they come to Wikipedia. If Runescape has an article, this should too. It's not how good YOU think the game is. It is a valid game, this is not trash, and Wikipedia could benefit with an article such as this. And no MuZemike, it's not an MMORPG. Read the friggin' article. It's an FPS like Halo you play with others online. Stop your stereotyping and why don't you actually check the game out at the VALID website of the VALID game played by many Valid players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- MMORPG, MMOFPS, what-MMO-ever! MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good You went to the website. You get a cookie! If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --Techdude300 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (reviews) needed to demonstrate notability, found an interview at MMOsite but no reviews from reliable sources. Someone another 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--Techdude300 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. That's the point of the notability standard. Nifboy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do not appear to be any non-trivial mentions of this game in reliable sources to verify its notability. In reference to the comment above: That seems to be impossible without any reliable sources. As such, the page will be deleted. If your condition was possible to meet, the article wouldn't be deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claims for notability. Alexius08 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.138.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note — User in question has been blocked for harassment as well as block evasion. Corresponding IP account has also been school-blocked due to persistent vandalism. MuZemike 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 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.