Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:29, 9 February 2023

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

S4 League

S4 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a video game that simply exists as far as I can tell and does not pass WP:GNG. A cursory search in Google shows no news articles and just a bunch of unofficial social media sites. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You would have to delete every other MMO or Multiplayer Game that "simply exists" Simonmana (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Other articles on MMOs tend to have reliable sources that are used to verify that it is notable. S4 has none and I can find none online. Not even Kotaku.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK then if you want il support the deletion of it since its own wikia SITE, multiple mmo sites covering it, its own play search database, its competative scene and YT videos and Twitch Streams arent enough.Simonmana (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop being passive aggressive and provide these sources already. However, they must meet the requirements of WP:RS. If none can be provided, then the page will be deleted. Anything can have its own Wikia, what are these "MMO sites", what the hell is a "play search database", any video game can have a competitive scene, and who cares if it's on YouTube or Twitch. Put up or shut up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say a couple of things:

1. .Stop insulting and be reasanoble.
2. .MMOBomb
3. .MMOHut
4. .The player database
5. .http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/435/S4-League.html/ MMOrpg]
6. .Free to Flay
7. .Metacritic
8. .This isnt my favourite game i dont even consider it a good one.I just dont like people messing with things they shouldnt and i like even less when they think they are right and when you show them proof they ignore it. Simonmana (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked your sources and they are all secondary, but I'm not sure they support notability. Can you find an article signed by an author? That would be helpful.--Nowa (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other but Metacritic does not help here. The only reviews listed are user reviews which don't count towards notability. It has mo metascore meaning that it has not been reviewed by any of the outside publications (magazines websites) that Metacritic covers. I'll leave analysis of the other sources to someone more familiar with the subject.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I also check GameRankings and they don't list any reviews either.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. All sources are primary sources. All sources are dead links or redirects to the company home page. Hence there is no evidence of notability (which needs a reliable secondary source) or even support for the article content.--Nowa (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Put it up twice for speedy deletion apperently it is notable so the speedy deletion was removed.I guess case closed.Simonmana (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest you read the guidelines for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is limited in scope. The fact that an article is ineligible for speedy deletion in no way suggests or establishes notability. Safiel (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I read them and if it really didnt have any notability it should havebeen removed yet it stands so make up your minds Simonmana (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:DELETE. There are a number of deletion methods based on specific criteria. Just because an article survived a speedy deletion template doesn't mean it's immune to deletion. Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

True an article not meeting A7 is in no way an endorsement of notability. First the scope is limited to specific topics and this is done to limit the burden of AFD. Video games are not one of the topics covered by this limited scope. Secondly, the standard for A7 is a lower bar than notability meaning that an article that rises above that bar could very well not rise above the bar of notability and in those cases AFD is the place to make that call. To put it another way the admin that will close this (or likely anyone) is almost certainly not going to conclude that this is notable simply due to A7 being rejected.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Unable to find any reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  So will it be deleted or are you gonna extend this thing longer ?Simonmana (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  Deletion discussions typically last at least seven full days. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  Yet all are currently in support of deletionSimonmana (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  An admin may come in and WP:SNOW delete it immediately. Or reliable, third-party sources may be published and added to the article in that time. It's happened. Woodroar (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  And with only two !votes this isn't going to be closed any time soon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  Welp no one would oppose so it willSimonmana (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  I would reconsider my "delete" if several good secondary references were added to the article.--Nowa (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:RS, fails WP:V, fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  09:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing that appears to meet WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu /_c 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG. I looked at metacritic and, well, 0 critic reviews. Now, I am open to revising my vote if someone presents Korean sources, perhaps? PS. User:Simonmana - how about you ask for your work to be preserved through WP:USERFY? Maybe in a while the game will receive proper coverage and then you can restore it to mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Zero reviews at Metacritic is pretty telling that searching isn't going to solve this one. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted at this point. Simonmana (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, judging by the responses, it will most certainly be deleted once the 7 days has passed and an uninvolved admin reviews the discussion. It's just a matter of time, but it'll likely be very soon considering its not specifically complicated discussion to review. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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.