Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xpert Eleven
- 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. Kurykh 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. No WP:RS, search through Google only turns up some forum postings. Speedy-deleted twice already. Leuko 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete same as the last two times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as well as Hattrick. Kahkonen 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent sources are found to establish notability Corpx 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Lenahan and CSD A7. --User:Krator (t c) 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to disagree, but Xpert Eleven is a game with 257,835 members (see front page www.xperteleven.com). The tone of the article could undoubtedly be improved, but I am appalled that people promoting the promulgation of knowledge across the world in many languages are driven to delete anything which in their eyes isn't "notable". I realise server space is an issue, even for a project as large as Wikipedia, but Xpert Eleven is not a passing fad, and deserves a Wikipedia entry (indeed, when I joined the game six months ago I was amazed it didn't have one already). David 86.212.29.149 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick PS: I have finally become a Wikipedia member and carried out a brisk edit of the Xpert Eleven page. It is clear that further work is needed. Regarding notability, it is evident that the game has not received publicity in the mainstream media, indeed most Google hits are forum posts. However, I believe that this somewhat surprising lack of publicity is most likely to be due to the site creators being happy to let the game spread virally/through word of mouth, and it should be noted that 257,000 members is not an insignificant amount. Clearly, the site is not as well known as e.g. facebook, myspace etc., nor is as well frequented, but on the other hand has not generated sufficient controversy to be covered by the mainstream media, for whatever reason. Can I please ask that the entry be allowed time to develop and cross-reference information, I'm sure there are many others who will want to contribute to this process. Thanks. DERW1981 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per our verifiability policy; articles should built upon independent references, regardless of argmuments for or against notability. We certainly shouldn't be writing articles and then waiting for reliable sources to write about it. Marasmusine 09:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, so we have to wait for "reputable" journalists to write "puff pieces" in "reliable" sources before we can add a Wikipedia entry? I don't mean to get personal, but I have looked at some of the articles on your page (e.g. Android 2 - which surely never had more than 250,000 players?) which are cross-referenced by equally obscure, now defunct, 80s magazine titles (as far as I can see - the example could equally be hypothetical as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles I see have maybe one, or possibly two obscure websites listed as sources. Just how does this improve the quality of the article?...)
- I appreciate that the Xpert Eleven website's claim of over 257,000 members might be disputed, but who exactly is going to verify this, and wouldn't all journalists merely quote this figure without checking it anyway? If Wikipedia is to document human history, it has to take account of a significant number of people engaging in an activity, and not just a reference from a website judged to be reliable. I look forward to the articles on "Second Life" and other virtual life websites cited in its article (e.g. "red light center") to be deleted before this article on a football game is deleted - otherwise it's just editor snobbery, pure and simple. Sorry for appearing cross, but I am. DERW1981 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't mean to get personal, then don't. Please see WP:NPA. This discussion should have nothing to do with the editors involved, but the subject at hand. Also, if you feel like you are appearing cross, then it might be a good idea to wait until you are not before posting. As it is your argument appears to say "This article should stay because the one of the foundations of Wikipedia policy is completely wrong", which to many might not be a viewpoint editors want to align themselves with. In other words, personal attacks and angry comments are more likely to get the article deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that the Xpert Eleven website's claim of over 257,000 members might be disputed, but who exactly is going to verify this, and wouldn't all journalists merely quote this figure without checking it anyway? If Wikipedia is to document human history, it has to take account of a significant number of people engaging in an activity, and not just a reference from a website judged to be reliable. I look forward to the articles on "Second Life" and other virtual life websites cited in its article (e.g. "red light center") to be deleted before this article on a football game is deleted - otherwise it's just editor snobbery, pure and simple. Sorry for appearing cross, but I am. DERW1981 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I shan't hog this page any further, but imagine there's an article on a website tomorrow, interviewing the owners and quoting verbatim the figures they provide. One article, and suddenly everything's ok? I just don't see this as a black and white issue, although I appreciate the theoretical concerns outlined above. DERW1981 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More than one, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also, popularity and recognition are not notability. If you feel that this topic should be notable, I'd recommend propositioning video game websites like Gamespot or 1UP.com to write an article on this overlooked website. If the site is as popular and unique as is claimed, it shouldn't be a problem. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I shan't hog this page any further, but imagine there's an article on a website tomorrow, interviewing the owners and quoting verbatim the figures they provide. One article, and suddenly everything's ok? I just don't see this as a black and white issue, although I appreciate the theoretical concerns outlined above. DERW1981 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone provides sources establishing notability. Nuttah68 10:45, 12 August 2007 (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.