Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly games

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 of the debate was delete – Gurch 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly games

Delete. ad, WP:CORP. Prod removed by User:fireflygames. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Unfair deletion. Article is no different from 90 percent of articles in its category, featuring companies of similar size, with articles created by the company itself, of similar size and detail. Why is it being singled out? Fireflygames 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google test result for "Firefly games"[1], "Firefly game" + "Patrick Sweeney"[2]. Yanksox 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• 113 unique [3] for "Firefly games" - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• And clearly a campaign of promotion: should it surprize anyone to get 113 hits from bulletin boards, rpg sites, etc. etc.? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Circular logic. An article about a game publisher should be deleted because Google returns 100+ gaming-related links? This seems to me to be evidence that the company is reasonably well-known in its field. Granted, it's not GM or American Express, but criteria for deletion should be more than one or two people unfamiliar with the topic not having heard of the company before.Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spam. Doesn't matter whether other articles in that category are similar; this is the one in question. The creator's username doesn't help his case much either. You shouldn't create articles about yourself. I'd support its inclusion in a list or some such thing, just not its own article. Kafziel 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Next time I'll be sure to create a fake username. Thanks for the tip.Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. See, next time it can be deleted without a vote, as re-creation of previously deleted material. So it won't matter then. Kafziel 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The history log shows I deleted my sarcastic comment within seconds of posting it, but I see you went to the trouble of restoring it to score more points off me. I do still find it bizarre that the primary objection to the article is that I didn't post it under a pseudonym. Regardless of who posted it, it's a factual article free of boastful or unverifiable claims. If you'd like to do further research & make non-vandalizing revisions or expansions as a third party, please do so - isn't that the point of Wikipedia?Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was no trouble to put your comment back in. In the future, I would suggest you take those few seconds it took you to re-read and decide to delete it, and spend a little extra time thinking twice before you post it. There's no hiding on Wikipedia, and certainly not AfD.

As for the rest: the primary objection to the article is that it is not a notable company, not that you weren't sneaky enough about adding it. It would still have a delete tag on it if your user name was Kafziel. And, no, the point of Wikipedia is not to make other editors scramble around to try to make something worthwhile out of vanity and advertising. It's simply not allowed, and nothing anyone here can write will make it a more famous or significant company.

I know it's hard not to take a deletion of one of your articles personally, especially when it has to do with you, but I hope it won't discourage you from contributing in more constructive ways elsewhere on Wikipedia. Kafziel 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no. I've been through junior high school before - no need to repeat the experience. Very disappointing ... on the other hand, now I have some firsthand experience to share when folks ask about Wikipedia's lack of credibility. Fireflygames 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia instantly loses credibility since it doesn't function the way you wish it to? Yanksox 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yanksox 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanispamcruftisement --Deville (Talk) 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Nertz 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Isopropyl 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Removing complete spam doesn't lower Wikipedia's credibility, IMHO. Grandmasterka 07:07, 8 June 2006 (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.