Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline

Add links
Source: 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. Just counting votes, consensus is iffy here. The deletes put up a more cogent argument: this fails WP:WEB. Why is that important? Because this game apparently isn't notable enough to have even a single independent non-trivial

reliable source to cite regarding it. With no reliable sources, this article, if it is to be neutral, is at best an unexpandable stub. Which, if you eliminate the unsourced puffery in the "Customizability" section, is pretty much its state right now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

GraalOnline

Does not conform with

these
. Members of both sides seem to agree that because no resolution can be found, this should be deleted. Administrators also agree, and there is a growing concensus for this to occur on the article's talk page.

  • Comment as Nominator: The reason that I nominated this, as well as the above reasons, was that I believe that this article is unfixable. Because of GraalOnline's staunch opposition (harrsasing phone calls to Wikimedia Corp, which Brad Patrick described to me as: "That's how [this issue] was brought to my attention, that and the harassing phone calls from the crazy Frenchman.") to anything added which doesn't have a positive connotation and serve as an advertisment, there will never be a NPOV on this page, unless GraalOnline corporation members are prevented from removing material. I would accept this resolution (GO staff being banned from removing material) as an alternate to deleting it, but if that isn't possible, delete it will be. Killfest2—Daniel 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now see where all this is coming from "a crazy Frenchman" (strange from an Australian and some American guys), that's the real problem not the article. About your statement about Graalonline removing material, we have removed the unsourced criticism content in conformity with wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Who are you to judge me and my corporation? Are you above of all wikipedia rules to be able to decide what article should be deleted or not and who should be able to edit the article or not? We have given URL of articles speaking about graalonline and lot of people think that the article should not be deleted pointing to wikipedia rules. Graal unixmad 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
Chill out. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: None of the critisism was sourced in this article, and when it was sourced, it was from a source which the wiki does not allow. I hope that you are not suggesting that this article go against wiki rules? What is wrong with fixing the article, and not adding things that people cannot source until they can per wiki guidelines?--Moon Goddess 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referred to this page by Danny as a likely reason for this page being deleted:
"If the rules are unhelpful, ignore them and do your best to improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality."
So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. Graal unixmad 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring. While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith. You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page. "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]". That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up. You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position. That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. JoshWook 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of 'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. You should compare 'http://wiki.graal.us/Graal' and you will see the actual article has not been written by GraalOnline Staff. Also have a look at other game article like RuneScape and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game", "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... Graal unixmad 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Runescape page is heavily referenced, notice the footnote after "Runescape is one of the top online games." Also, I did not accuse GraalOnline of writing the paragraph in question - I only question why you are so intent on removing unreferenced negative information while ignoring the same standards on unreferenced positive information. JoshWook 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch what we have deleted? It's nothing about removing negative information about the game but defamatory and false content against Me, the GraalOnline Staff and the Game. Perhaps you have not followed the story but the section has been written a few weeks ago by 2 players because they have been banned from GraalOnline for not respecting rules ( User:Warcaptain and User:Di4gram. Have a look who have modified the article and made this war... Graal unixmad 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the crux of my argument - if the reason for deleting what you refer to as "defamatory and false content" was that it fell under
WP:OR, then why have you allowed the other unreferenced information to stand? User:JoshWook 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
We were not the creator of this article (article created long time ago) so we prefered to discuss on the talk page (What have done Stefan Knorr and Me). We have deleted the defamatory and false content because it was new content and it was also not discussed with anyone before being added. Also we are not experienced Wikipedia User and we have learned the hard way. Graal unixmad 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To throw in my other 2 cents: Almost whenever I heard of Graal, I also heard about Unixmad's and the forum administration's unfairness towards the players. So if you like it or not, this issue also concerns users of your game. But then, as your actions were only announced in your private forum that is not immune to later modificiation or private conversations that are not at all quotable, there is probably no way to state this in a "verificable" way. Forum posts of banned persons were altered, and players critising the action of Graal's administration were silenced by threatening them with bans. --Philipp Kern 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the User:Loriel who unixmad attributed the aforequoted weasel-words to. However, they originated in this edit of the Graal article on our Graal wiki. While I hosted the wiki at that time, it was not entirely written by me and this edit was not my doing. Also, while I am not currently associated with Graal and was not when that edit was made, I used to be a game master/administrator and involved in or managing some of Graal's projects. While I suppose that the wording used was not entirely NPOV considering my past enjoyment of the customisability of Graal, it still does not appear particularly glamourising or advertising to me. Having a "greatest strength" does not imply any notable strongness compared to other things, and "surprisingly powerful" only served to relativate "simple" which I believe is entirely justified considering most of the game's content, outside of the actual engine, is written in this language.
However I would like to point out that I also made plenty of "negative" comments regarding Graal, the volunteer administration and so on, which were partially lost by vandalism (that went unnoticed by me until the recent edit-war when I did not dare to interfere anymore) and by the administrative intervention after the mediation. While pf course it was entirely unsourced (apart from a link to our wiki) as I was blissfully oblivious of Wikipedia policies at the time, but hey, nobody complained, and it appeared way more balanced and less "dramatic" than the current version.
Loriel 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kicking the indentation back to a reasonable level. User:Graal unixmad, this is a valid and serious point. It looks, on its face to be POV protection. To maintain a truly NPOV, both unsourced negative and positive commentary needed to be removed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I originally said to delete this article :-P Oh well, but hey its working out right anyway --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The company in question is CyberJoueurs, not GraalOnline by itself; the latter is rather a published product. --Philipp Kern 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed into Keep (previous Neutral) on date of signature. It think an unbiased entry should be present, which neither serves as a plain advertisement by CyberJoueurs, nor as a plain flame of their administration. --Philipp Kern 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but way too much history for a non-partisan observer (I like to think that's me) to wade through. I suspect if it does get deleted you'll need it protected to prevent recreation. Yomangani 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your right, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to
salt the earth without at least one inappropriate recreation WilyD 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"Anti-GraalOnline" is a very funny phrase to use, whether or not it preceeds the word "management". You seem to be dangerously close to following that game's management in that you are defining critics as "anti". I'll still let good faith guide me away from saying that you are speaking under their direction, but please don't suggest otherwise by using rather black-and-white terminology.
Huh? I certainly wouldn't classify too many in there as pro-GraalOnline, would you? You prefer another phrase, throw it out there. Pro-GraalOnline-criticism seems a little unwieldy to me but that's fine too. As for www.suiffix.com, I can't even figure out how to use the site so how reliable can it be? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with di4gram in the "anti-Graal" thing. If you are so eager to condemn contributors as anti-GraalOnline, I just have to consider you biased or heavily influenced by the GraalOnline management. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, just trying to keep count of people who wanted the criticism section vs. those that didn't. It felt like the ratio was weighed heavily in favor of the former and, if you consider that two of the users in the latter group were blocked indefinitely, the ratio approaches infinity I think. Maybe I'm wrong and it was just the same pro-criticism-section (is that better?) users posting over and over but it seemed like it was becoming quite a hive mentality. Whichever, take a look at how many of my 12,000+ edits here have been related to online gaming at all and reconsider how affiliated I am with the GraalOnline management. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about anti-Cyberjoueurs? Is that better? Semantics, semantics... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. It seems very hasty to assume that those who think that accepting criticism is important are "anti"-anything. Loriel 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, you clearly get my point so just substitute whatever term makes you happy. If both sides like to be called pro-something, then go for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "pro-opinion"?--Kuribo 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you, but not enough people care that are posting here, to do it correctly. It is really a shame that it will be deleted. --Moon Goddess 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible
single purpose account: Adrian78 (talk • contribs
) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
— Possible
single purpose account: Spiderweb (talk • contribs
) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 3 edits, all of which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep If GraalOnline article need to be delete because of this false reason then 50% of wikipedia need to be deleted Markis 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible
single purpose account: Markis (talk • contribs
) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 2 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
— Possible
single purpose account: Antidot12 (talk • contribs
) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 5 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Please note that this user is currently suspected of being involved in sockpuppetry. Killfest2—Daniel 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - Smaller game are on wikipedia so Graalonline should be allowed to get an article. Also see comments bellow Graal unixmad 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You own it neither. Keep that in mind. --Philipp Kern 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've gone through and read a lot of the information on wikipedia about this particular dispute, and while I'm sympathetic to the "I give up" position, I think we all need to step back and breathe for a second. I've never played Graal before but I've heard about it before this mess - surely it's been notable enough to get a mention independently somewhere before. As far as the criticism, "positive", and "negative" information is concerned, I could care less as long as there are reliable sources listed. If not, tag and eventually delete, as per the mediation dispute. The corporate website is fine for information on game mechanics, publication date and history (as long as the information cited avoids advertisement and blatant self-praise), etc. - that stuff is NPOV and their website is nothing more than a convenient source. If it is later vandalized, temp. protect the page. Don't let wikipedia be bullied by a couple of minor online communities. In short, I'm sure this can all be worked out before the publication deadline. 129.61.46.16 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment I don't known if this is common on wikipedia that someone introducing a request for deletion try to influence the vote saying that everyone agree to delete the article. But the team managing the game and the creators of the game (Me and Stefan Knorr) are completly against having the article deleted. Could be also interesting to ask the > 300000 players that have downloaded the game and open an account if the game is
    WP:WEB
    or not.

Also if a game giving 60000 results on google and having more than 20 reviews is

WP:WEB
then lot of other articles should be deleted see this list of review:

Graal unixmad 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The preceeding comment by unixmad was originally placed in the header of the AFD with the nomination. I'm going to assume good faith in that they meant to add it to the bottom of the page as a new comment and were not trying to interfere with the nomination itself, so I moved it down appropriately as a new comment. I think they're right about the reviews though - they do at least attest to the notability of the game. Would it be possible to use those as a basis for a rewrite? 129.61.46.16 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
      • Those reviews appear pretty onesided, so you might as well replace the article with an advertisement copy&pasted from the game's website. Though I am laughing pretty hard at "modified version of C, know as Graal Script.". Loriel 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I did not mean to suggest that the reviews are balanced in coverage, only that they qualify as sources independent of graal online and therefore testify to the notability of the game. I guess the main issue I have with this AFD is that it was nominated for deletion because it was not notable enough, when the real problem is the content dispute. Unfortunately, content disputes generally do not fall under any deletion guideline that I'm aware of. Of course, they also usually don't result in Wikimedia's lawyers stepping in...so this may be a highly unusual case all around. 68.106.198.28 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
            • Comment While I hate to pass the buck here, you have to understand that even if the entirety of the internet and print world has been purged of negative information on a subject, it is simply not Wikipedia's job to publish that negative information first. That's original research, and goes against one of wikipedia's foundation policies. You may have the right to get the word out about Graal, but basically, you don't have the right to do it here until it's done in a reliable, peer-reviewed source elsewhere. 68.106.198.28 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
                • Comment No, Wikipedia does not condone advertisements - many articles about non-notable games or websites, usually written by the owners of the product, are deleted on a regular basis. The websites listed above, however, confirm in my mind that Graal is not something invented last week. It has a fairly long history for an online game, and is notable enough for an article. Most of those reviews do not appear to be affiliated with the site, and even if they don't mention the personality conflicts that seem to be the issue here, their impressions of the game aren't overwhelmingly positive either. I guess the thing is, that while a game or website may be notable enough for a wikipedia article, not all of its components (in this case, its forums and spin-off forums, I guess) are necessarily worthy of the same treatment. JoshWook 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly this is getting old. This wikipedia war is not going to end. I can see perfectly why it's nominated for deletion as it is one-sided and more advertisement friendly. Everything put in it is simply on Graal Online's side and as much as I love the game, this wiki is not part of Graal Online and is control by the community. I don't see why both sides can't come to a conclusion and by allowing the article to go back up just means the war will start again. Deletion seems to be the easiest method, this whole situation has gotten so complicated and has become such a big issue that it disserves itself to be on the wiki as it's an issue. It just seems like a bunch of accounts are being made to say "Keep" now as if it truly matters... just let it go and forget it for a while and if it is deleted just wait a while to make a new one. Even when you make a new one, people are going to alter it because that's how wiki works. Once someone alters it then more arguments will happen on Graal Onlines side. It's more likely in the future that there will be citable information for critism for the game... even those reviews of the game are not very good but in no way reveal any critizism. Brandon Mitchell 5:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would love to see a good, Graal article here, like other games have. Just don't add anything that cannot be sourced, until it can be by wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Graal unixmad and Philipp Kern.
    WP:NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is poor as is, then fix it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'd hate to see a precedent established that you can prevent anything negative from being said about you on Wikipedia through empty law suit threats.
    Jack Thompson (attorney) threatened to sue Wikipedia and his page is still intact along with all the information that makes him look bad. Ace of Sevens 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete unsourced, questionable notability. Kotepho 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Even though I still believe this article is irrelevant and hard to find good sources for, and still should be deleted. I have found a source to cite that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual and threatens his customers and staff http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.petitiononline.com/bhunter/petition.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDMCA%2BPORTHA%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG note the article is originally in french and some words may be hard to understand, but it is easy to understand the basic picture. This is not intented as anything but a statement of facts about an event pertenent to this topic. Vipercat 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it but isn't that a site where anyone can contribute anything? That's like using unverified information on Wikipedia as a source. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, which is why I did not attempt to directly post it on the article, but rather put it in for consideration here. The standards for verified information in relation to the nature of this article makes the whole situation difficult to be fair either way. All of the information is going to come from some person or another from the internet, you are not going to get verified pictures of over 300,000 people, or even 30 people to stand and pose in a picture with todays newspaper and a sign saying "I PLAYED GRAALONLINE, or that GRAAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING AND IN C++" and even if they did exist I do not think they would organize in such a fashion, make the cardboard signs and do such a thing. This whole situation is not an easy one, no matter who you are, if you are to make the GraalOnline wikipedia article more relevant, factual, and verified, it is simply not the nature of non-mainstream lesser popular online games. Vipercat 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to have both view points from both long time players/members of Graal, and new players/members. It's just so hard to be able to find sources that will be accepted.--Moon Goddess 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unixmad found a few different independent sources for reviews so it's not impossible. That's what pushed me over the edge into voting keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, now if we can keep the article from being deleted, maybe we can make it a notable, decent article. --Moon Goddess 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a longtime player of GraalOnline I'd hate to see the article go, but that being said after seeing the CyberJoueurs staff conduct on the page I can't put myself to give this a Keep vote. But since when did we start deleting things because non-wikipedians asssociated with that article vandalised repeatedly in an attempt to ruin the NPOV...isn't it usually just protected? Canadian-Bacon 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to help rewrite this article NPOV. I am sorry that things have descended to this, people have gotten sucked in from both sides and reputations have been ruined/put on the line on both sides. I think that this article should stay, and that both sides can work together to make a decently informative and NPOV article. I'm pretty much eliminating my previous comments; they were based on false pretenses. This thing has spiralled out of control, and I think that civility has pretty much been shot in the face by people on both sides (including me). I think that deleting this article would be for the wrong reasons. Di4gram 16:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that happens, hopefully more than just a handful of people would be included in the survey. ^^ --Moon Goddess 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and while you're on it: Please do not include administrative staff. --Philipp Kern 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's notable, a person uninvolved with the site can write about it
    Karwynn (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment Another possible source for consideration is http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=0a0d5d069e2f5481d42cd2824c93bafb&t=42339 this is a libelous and slanderous message against me from Unixmad from his own site, with no external citation, no direct proof, and no prior permission to post my name and personal information on the internet. This supports the criticism that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual, and also illustrates the kinds of attempts at illegal public attacks, slander, and threats he does. Vipercat 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's not a source that could be used for a wikipedia article. Take your story to CNN, or even a local paper, and get them to *publish* a story about Portha's harshness. Even then, it would be greatly preferred if you stop using wikipedia as a soapbox. JoshWook 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viper....just stop. Stop trying to use the wiki for revenge. --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not make either of those articles, Unixmad himself published that in his own forums, and the other on PetitionOnline was made by someone who I thought was the most pro-graal person in the world, the former GraalOnline admin MagicalTux who was once very close and big time in the GraalOnline staff until he was clearly betrayed and threatened at some point by Unixmad. So I am trying to get revenge by using magical mind control fairies to make them both write things that makes unixmad look bad? And some people try and call me crazy... Vipercat 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold up - you're missing the point. From everything I've read, I'm fully on your side on a personal level...however, I honestly don't think Wikipedia is the right media to vent your complaints. Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia. I would not expect the Encyclopedia Brittanica to cover a non-notable dispute, using only forums and personal emails as evidence - Wikipedia is not constrained by the limits of paper, but it still strives for the same quality standards. An encyclopedia is, in general, a compendium of the research of others - and by research, I mean of the intensive, peer-reviewed kind. That happens in a newspaper and even more in sources like scientific journals, and there are simply no controls or authority behind an individual, or even a group of individuals, posting semi-anonomyously to an online forum. It amounts to original research, and is not appropriate subject matter for an encyclopedia. User:JoshWook 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign in - and I am kinda new, although I've been contributing as an IP for a bit)[reply]
    • Wow. Well said. I think I'm smelling a future admin! Why don't you have a User account? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where the problem lies. Nobody has written a documentary or scholarly artice, or published book in print that has been extensively peer reviewed on this matter. You are also correct this is an encyclopedia, but if it is not a relevant subject such as Elephants then how can it fit into an encyclopedia in the first place? How can any game? Vipercat 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy - there are lots of print magazines dedicated to games, and even more online. The business as a whole is undeniably massive, on the same order of magnitude as film, and receives a good deal of media coverage. It doesn't have to necessarily be scholarly, it only has to meet wikipedia's internal standards for verifiability and reliability. And verifiable is not the same as truth - just because something is true doesn't mean it warrants coverage on wikipedia. Actually, see the big discussion I had up above in this AFD that now looks like I had it with myself under 129.61.46.16 and 68.106.198.28 because the other guy deleted his comments when he changed his opinion ;) JoshWook 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically I just need to talk some random gaming website with arbitrary standards of verificating content into publishing my rantings, and suddenly my opinion becomes more important than that of a dozen people arguing the same topic on several forums and wiki discussions? I am not sure it should be this easy. Loriel 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...don't take this the wrong way, but that's just how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a forum - it's an encyclopedia. Go to your local decent-sized library and check out the reference section. Ignore the Brittanica and find a more obscure, specialized encyclopedia, such as an encyclopedia on Occult phenomena (yes, they do exist). And then look at how the articles are written and, more importantly, the references. You'll find that the encyclopedia, no matter how obscure, has not gone out and conducted its own study and interviewed people about their experiences with alien abductions - it relies on the published "research" of others. There might be other wikis out there with different standards, but as an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not the place to *conduct* research, it's a place to *report* on it. JoshWook 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link Feel free to add it to User:Daniel/GraalOnlineSandbox, which I will use to create an extensive and detailed criticism section for the GraalOnline article if this AfD is deemed to have not reached a concensus. Hopefully with my knowledge of the loopholes and precise definitions of policies, I can advert a situation where someone rings up Wikimedia FOundation and cries until they get what they want. Killfest2—Daniel 10:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DB is just continuing is sad work on the GraalOnline article, he will have the privilege to talk with Viper :) Good luck. Graal unixmad 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it flew over the both of you completely. What Daniel is attempting to make, as far as I can tell, is a sandbox for a criticism section with notable citation. I don't find it "sad work", rather, I find it as an attempt to give the Criticism section a chance, which was unfairly removed before the 7 days after mediation, due to Unixmad's bickering over the phone, which in turn blew off Daniel's faith in the Wikipedia system. That's just an analysis on my part. In any case, that's all only if the article isn't deleted.--Kuribo 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean

Havok (T/C/c) 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment How come when others make remarks such as what you just made, Daniel, they are told to not post things like that here? (Nice threat, btw =/ ) --Moon Goddess 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that tells them not to post criticisms thus far has been Unixmad. And defacing and deleting articles and criticisms, especially in the talk page is considered defacement, defacement is not allowed, it is not a threat, just a simple fact of life, one which some people can't seem to deal with... Vipercat 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, neither I nor anyone else ever threatened to remove anything - I simply asked if he would move this particular branch of the discussion off of the AFD for the article, since whether he was banned from Graal or not has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should include an article of GraalOnline. I still hold to that position, and ask that Daniel and others please continue this discussion elsewhere. JoshWook 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sorry. Loriel 18:55, 4 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline&oldid=1149988889"