Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nowa (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 21 August 2014 (→S4 League). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates