Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Diaspora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ck lostsword•T•C 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Diaspora

Project Diaspora (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Anonymous user has put article up for prod; but has been prod'd before, so moving here. Prod reason was: Non-notability; no references; original research; conflict of interest. Bad article. This echos my first prod [1] which was removed by Freaknigh, who says on the talk page that independent references are on their way. However, as the article stands at the moment, there are no reliable independent sources. MarašmusïneTalk 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither can defend their argument and leave no suggestions for improvement. Neither have actually researched their claims they are only seeking to have the article destroyed. This article has had at least a hundred separate visitors since it has been put up considering my google analytics have claimed this site as their reference. One person can who does nothing but go around and file wikis for deletion and another who can't even use their real account don't seem to have opinions that weigh properly in my eyes. Not to mention the wiki has been in constant repair of Marasmusines claims since they were made. Freaknigh 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)— Freaknigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ah sorry, let me defend my argument and make a suggestion for improvement. In it's current state, this article does not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V), because it does not have any independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Thus, it also does not satisfy the notability guidelines either (WP:N). My suggestion for improvement is that the article should contain independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Whilst I was prepared to leave the article and wait for such sources, the above anonymous user's prod attempt has prompted me to move the discussion here. MarašmusïneTalk 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have, in fact, done research. Very few of the top search results for "Project Diaspora" relate to your project. Of those that do, the majority are forum topics started by you. This fact adds weight to the argument that your article does not satisfy that Notability policy.
My reasons for prod'ing the article are:
* You are the developer of the game discussed by the article, therefore the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, and WP:NPOV guidlines.
* My Google research failed to verify any of the "facts" in the article. Therefore the article to not satisfy WP:V. A lot of the claims aren't even on your own site, therefore the article appears to be original research.
That I have no account is irrelevant. My arguments stand. 88.144.18.166 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if the article can be significantly improved. Otherwise, delete. Hate to admit it, Freak, but they're right. Mikesc86 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:N notability and for having no reliable sources - a Google search brings up nothing of use that I can see. Neither of the external links in the article are reliable sources, the first is just a short blog post and the other is literally a passing mention. QuagmireDog 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, unverifiable, fails WP:WEB and has no reliable sources. There is also a massive conflict of interest here since freaknigh has admitted to being the developer of this game. Oh, and freaknigh, If I were a single-purpose account, I wouldn't think it was a good idea to go around saying other editors don't seem to have opinions that weigh properly in my eyes.DarkSaber2k 09:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe so many wiki closet dwellers are all coming out for my entry. I should make a wiki entry for all your collected existence so the world can protect their arses. Freaknigh 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm never going to be able to fight this argument properly because there should be separate rules for "products" on wikipedia. You can and will never ever be and to get a source or reference for a product/game/whatever aside from proving it's existence. And for notability, for a product, WOULD be defined as its popularity, how in the world could it ever stem from anything else? Which is why I continuely say that you are all doing nothing but attacking because those rules weren't designed to govern over these kind of entries. Wikipedia should really just make a no products rule. Freaknigh 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. (Picks up random Edge magazine). Here's a full-page review of I-Ninja on page 36. It's independent, non-trivial and from a reliable source. The same game has plenty of features on reliable sites like IGN. Therefore I-Ninja passes verifiability and notability. Popularity has little to do with it. MarašmusïneTalk 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per DarkSaber2k's rather thorough analysis.Montco 21:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It certainly hits the nail on the head. Notability and verifiability in Wikipedia's terms are simple and measurable concepts, both of which this article currently fails. Perhaps if that changes in future, it could have an article. Hopefully written by someone who is independent. Adrian M. H. 21:55, 7 July 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.