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. --Coredesat 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overrated[edit]

Overrated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is not encyclopedic, it is in fact a vanity page done as an homage to a former guild from World of Warcraft. The guild was banned for exploiting a bug, and a few articles were written about the exploit. Those articles are being used as a justification for the existence of this page even though the articles have little or nothing to say about the guild itself. The only information that might be arguably notable (if you consider the few sources for it) would be the exploit itself, but that would exist in a different article about the exploit specifically. -- Atamasama 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Atamasama has been WP:CANVASsing: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain how this is WP:CANVASsing. Fangz the Wolf 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(from WP:CANVAS "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" (opening section) under "types of canvassing" it "says" that if a message is biased, it is considered disruptive canvassing. Atama's message implied that he needed a force of people to fight against the "fanboys" who will vote to keep it. So he was requesting people to come for a "delete" vote. McKay 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, he didn't purpose the article to be deleted, he just signed it up to be AFD. I purposed it. Fangz the Wolf 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mckay, by what you posted "canvassing" is composed of multiple postings trying to get people to influence the outcome. I posted one request in the WoW main article where a deletion for this page was discussed to let people know that this article was being put up for AfD. Why did I mention fanboys? Because I was informed that the polite request I'd put in to have this article reviewed by an admin was deleted by a former guildmember, and so I expected to have a biased response against the AfD. The irony is that the only multiple postings I've put about this article were on talk pages of people who have worked on this article to give them a chance to defend it out of courtesy. Including your talk page. -- Atamasama 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable group, no real assertions of notbility at ALL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Somewhat ironic that something named "overrated" is being removed for, well, just that. Subdolous 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What would you call this or this or this? McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- [see below] I'm sure this has been up before. In any case, I am not a WoW player, I hate WoW for stealing all my friends, but this is notable. The guild recieved online coverage for their cheating, and sources are linked at the bottom, as well as copied out on the talk page in case the link goes dead. In accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, a case could be made for renaming this article to Overrated cheating controversy or something, but the article should certainly be kept. J Milburn 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Merge. As clear from the provided references, the exploit is what is notable - not the guild or group of players that carried it out. The article should either be renamed to reflect the exploit or merged into an appropriate article. --Sesameball^Talk 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing notable here. Its essentially a vanity page.The guild isn't notable, the exploit is not notable, the members are not notable, nor even the fact that some were banned. Wow members are banned everyday for a variety of reasons including exploiting. Even the exploit itself certainly is not notable even within the specialized realm of exploits, let alone a general encylopedia. If wiki were to have an article about every minor computer exploit, it would resemble a technical journal more so than an encylopedia. I don't even think this is worth a few sentences on the general World of Warcraft page. Dman727 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. What are your notability criteria? J Milburn 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is the notability criteria.Dman727 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it passes WP:N. If you think it doesn't maybe you should try explaining why you think it doesn't. McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it will help if I point out what part of WP:N would apply here. It states that Wikipedia is concerned with long-term notability. Something that seems notable on a short-term basis is suited better for Wikinews than Wikipedia. This is the criteria for an independent article. In other words, even if you only consider the exploit and not the guild it still lacks enough long-term notability to have its own page, but you might perhaps add the exploit information to a page about online game cheating. -- Atamasama 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've still yet to see a notable, encyclopedic article on an online-game guild... and this isn't one either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's interesting how the deleters assume anything about a videogame can't be notable. "Let's delete Fragdolls too!" The topic clearly passes WP:N because it passes WP:N. It's got several independent articles about it. Sure, maybe they're all about one event. If you want, feel free to Rename the article to the event covering the banning. Maybe the article isn't written very well, maybe it needs some cleanup, removing vanity, sure. But there's nothing wrong with the presence of some of this content in Wikipedia. McKay 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article passes WP:N because it passes WP:N?? That is not a valid reasoning. Chris! _ct 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I corrected Typo McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Fragdolls aren't a WoW guild whose 5 seconds of fame were from getting banned and ending up with a brief mention on 3 gaming news sites. Please, assume good faith, don't start accusing the editors of trying to purge videogame information from Wikipedia when most of us are regular contributors to game pages (World of Warcraft in particular). -- Atamasama 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sutiable for Wikipedia, seems unimportant. Fangz the Wolf 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the Overrated banning scandal was barely 15 minutes of fame even in the World of Warcraft, it's certainly not real-world notability suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:N, mostly a unreferenced vanity page. This does not belong in wikipedia. --Fogeltje 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People keep saying things like "Delete per WP:N" and while such arguments should generally be avoided WP:VAGUEWAVE, there are people who have specifically mentioned that it does pass WP:N. I guess it needs to be explained in more detail. From WP:N:

  "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

  • "Presumed": It doesn't fail WP:NOT. No problems with that there. Maybe people are meaning something like this, but then, it wouldn't be a problem with WP:N, it would be a problem with some other guideline (like WP:NOT).
  • "Significant Coverage": Gamespot, softpedia, and WoW insider (aka joystiq) all give significant coverage to the event. Yes, it may just be the event that's notable. I'm admitting that. In such a case a Rename would be necessary.
  • "Reliable" Gamespot and Joystiq are considered excellently-reliable sources in the video game world. WoW insider, even more so in the WoW world. Admittedly, I haven't heard of softpedia, but I think the case is strong without it.
  • "Sources" There are multiple, secondary, high-quality sources
  • "independent" they are all objective, indepdendent sources, with no leaps of analysis.

  Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone says, "Delete, fails WP:N" they'd better have a good reason, because it seems very clear to me that it passes WP:N. McKay 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You completely ignored my explanation above, Mckay. I suggest you read it. Essentially, an article must have long-term notability to justify its existence, all cited news sources for this article were published within 2 days of each other. Allow me to quote from WP:N:

A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

-- Atamasama 07:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Atama, I understand your perspective, but you must understand that the policy says that such events could be notable or not. There's nothing in WP:N that states that the topic isn't notable, but merely that it's possible it isn't notable. You can vote, state an opinion clearly that you think that because it was a short burst, it wasn't notable. Your opinion is valid, Stating "fails WP:N" is not entirely correct. McKay 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just my opinion. Take a look at WP:NOT for further discussion:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.

There has to be something really special about this subject for it to be worth having its own article despite a lack of long-term notability. Nobody has demonstrated anything but the opposite in this discussion. -- Atamasama 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my 'vote' to delete. I'm convinced- there is no lasting notability, as far as I can see. Unless someone can find a mention of the guild from either before or a fair while after the banning, then this should go as having no lasting notability. J Milburn 18:58, 5 November 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.