Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallente Federation (EVE Online)

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 All except Spaceships of EVE Online - this looks more notable. If anyone wishes to transwiki, message me on my talk page for the deleted text. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallente Federation (EVE Online)

Gallente Federation (EVE Online) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable.Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT.Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ample precedent exists for deletion of this article, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyerite, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitrator (EVE), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executioner (EVE), Punisher (EVE) and Tormentor (EVE).

Other precident:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures.Hu12 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related:

• Amarr Empire (EVE Online)
• Caldari State (EVE Online)
• Minmatar Republic (EVE Online)
• Spaceships of EVE Online
• Races of EVE Online

• Delete: fails WP:NOT and is also no more than an essay.--Voxpuppet 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the list of ships, Merge the others into appropriate articles or just axe them. Individual empires shouldn't get their own articles, and they're not well sourced, but I see no issue with the ship list. I suggest removing it from the AFD, it's not really related. --UsaSatsui 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Just merge the content. Relevant, but not by itself. i ^said 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - All are completely in universe content with no real world notability. List of ships should be deleted because WP is not a game guide. Transwiki if an appropriate wiki is found Corpx 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between a game guide and an article about a game feature. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that game features are stuff that are found in game guides Corpx 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, or perhaps United Federation of Planets should be deleted as well? Fosnez 14:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an AADD. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And thats a typically weak response. You can hide behind as much quoted bureaucratic nonsense as you want. It seems the deletionists have really won wikipedia, and this makes me sad. Fosnez 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What kind of argument is that? "My argument is so weak it's even been listed on a page of weak arguments, yet since you're a deletionist, my argument is stronger?" Just because one article is included doesn't open the door for another (especially when one is Star Trek and another is a far less popular MMORPG). Nice try at a Rush Limbaugh-type move, though, labeling me as a "deletionist" and therefore everything I say is wrong. I didn't even vote Delete in this AFD. Pay attention next time. --UsaSatsui 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I have seen too many articles deleted because they are "not notable" to someone who doesn't know where the contect came from. Now it's mine turn to quote... "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- Jimmy Wales[1] by deleteing articles like this, we are not providing the sum of all human knowledge - hence why I called you a deletionist, because when you attacked me (and hiding behind policy is an attack IMHO) I automatically assumed you were against the preservation of this endangered article - I appologise for calling you a deletionist, but the fact remains, this IS a notable subject... Seeing as Google searches seem to have somehow come to reflect Notability, here are some figures:

Amarr Empire - 22,300

Gallente Federation - 21,100

Minmatar Republic - 18,500

Caldari State - 21,700

"Not Notable" - Oh I think they are notable, they may be suitable on other wikis, but as Mr. Wales so well put it above - they are valid articles here too - Fosnez 10:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, see, that is an argument. Much better than "It's notable because I say it is" or "You just want to delete everything!", anyways. You have a strange idea of an attack. I didn't even quote "policy". You need to bring something to the table when you make a point, you know. And you're doing it again, throwing out terms like "deletionist" like they're bad things.

Anyways, I still don't think each race should get it's own article, but I don't think a delete is in order. --UsaSatsui 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fosnez wasn't making an 'other crap exists' argument. ALTON .ıl 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • "Or do we have to delete X too"? S'what it looks like to me. Why waste time over which bad argument it was? It's better now. --UsaSatsui 12:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. per my nom and Corpx. better suited on http://www.eve-wiki.net than on Wikipedia--Hu12 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. I've played EVE, it's a great game, and this is a good start at a gaming guide. Sadly, that isn't what wikipedia's about, this needs moving to a more appropriate wiki. --Oscarthecat 10:56, 27 August 2007 (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.