Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Wars

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. There have been no reliable sources presented showing verifiability. If anyone wishes to transwiki, feel free to message me and I'll give you a copy. Wickethewok 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footmen Wars

Footmen Wars is a type of multiplayer mode made up by fans for a computer game. The top Google results are to this article and a load of forums. There is absolutely no evidence of it being the subject of multiple non-trivial works (WP:WEB).
Also nominating: Footmen Frenzy. -- Steel 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Battle.net is a trivial work. It has featured footies. --Adam Wang 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both I hope the editors of these pages can find a good gaming wiki to tranfer this information, but it doesn't belong here. "Footmen Frenzy" gets 491 unique Gogle hits and "Footmen Wars" gets 246. Wikipedia is not a video game guide applies here, as much of the content is needlessly specific and of a tone more appropriate for an FAQ walk-through. Neither article has established notability, therefore both fail WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a video game? What about the other articles like World of Warcraft? Yes WoW is more popular than Footmen Frenzy, but Footmen Frenzy is notable too. --Adam Wang 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Wikipedia is not a video game guide. WoW has demonstrated notability, therefore merits an article. These two works have not demonstrated notability. -- Scientizzle 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep both of them. its wrong to say that wikipedia aint the place for videogames. wikepedia is a place where u should be able to find information about everything in the world including videogames—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.233.235.184 (talk • contribs) . No contributions but this AfD.
- Comment WP:NOT proves you wrong, bucko. Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you search "Footmen Frenzy" on Google, the first link is to the NoHunter's website. Nohunters Clan is the creator of Footmen Frenzy. Footmen Wars gets 293 000 hits, and Footmen Frenzy gets 103 000 hits. --Adam Wang 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, yeah, I covered the Google hits angle--the vast majority of those hits are not unique. Also, why does the creation of the game by the NoHunters Clan make the game notable? -- Scientizzle 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I meant. I just wanted to inform you of that, just in case.
Delete Both for the reasons listed. However, I think there should either be a separate article listing and briefly describing the major Warcraft III custom games, or somebody should clean-up the already existing list on the Warcraft III article. Other articles to delete (some of which are already AfD) are listed here. Mipchunk 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And isn't this a case of "been there, done that"? As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Frenzy & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Footman Wars? --Calton | Talk 07:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't seen those. Footman Frenzy has been recreated several times... Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen frenzy to the list, too. -- Scientizzle 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete Footmen Wars and/or Footmen Frenzy, then why not delete Defense of the Ancients and other Warcraft Custom Games? There is a Category named Category:Warcraft custom games Category:Warcraft custom games. --Adam Wang 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I suggested above, I think that a single page should be devoted to briefly describing the major Warcraft maps. By brief, I mean about one paragraph (or less). You can see that such a list already exists on the main Warcraft III article. Mipchunk 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. I suggested something similar here. I tried to convince the editors of Footmen Frenzy to transwiki the article. I envision a single article discussing the phenomenon of user-made maps in general with subsections on specific games that have a significant presence of user-made maps. Each of those subsections could then link to the proper gaming wiki with all the details concerning each of the maps. -- Scientizzle 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why though? Each of these games is notable. Dota and Footmen Frenzy, are equally popular, or more popular, than the Actual Online Game itself. Dota and Footmen Frenzy have huge fanbases in North America and Europe- especially Germany and Sweden. Basshunter made a song on Dota. Dota and Footmen Frenzy videos are on Youtube and other sites. Both have been featured by Battle.net as the Top 3 Most Popular Custom games. Clan HALP Tournuments are always full- they are now into Week Five. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable information. Dota and Footmen Frenzy are notable. --Adam Wang 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - DotA at least has a claim to notability ("DotA Allstars v5.84c was featured in the Malaysian and Singaporean World Cyber Games 2005 national finals and the Cyberathlete Amateur League now runs both Open and Main divisions using DotA v6.32b"). Footmen Wars & Footmen Frenzy don't, and nothing has been presented here to meet WP:V & WP:RS to rectify that. Instead of just telling us that these are notable, find something to meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Scientizzle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, still not encyclopedic. -- nae'blis 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how you guys are determined to remove valuable information from Wikipedia, please tell me how to put this on a Gaming Wiki. What are some gaming wikis? thanks. --Adam Wang 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't really call this valuable information, but StrategyWiki seems to be the popular gaming wiki. -- Steel 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I"ll start transferring. --Adam Wang 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice work on the transwiki. -- Scientizzle 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other Warcraft III custom maps are being permitted to stay. I feel as though there's a bit of hypocrisy. It seems as though, if this is deleted, the other articles for those maps should be deleted as well.--BGBkstroke 01:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You basically argued the same thing on the AfDs I initiated for "other Warcraft III custom maps," Dark Deeds & Eve of the Apocalypse. (This strikes me as a ridiculous contradiction to your own argument: don't delete this article becuase other Warcraft III custom map articles exist, then you vote to keep the other articles, too?!) The discussion here is about Footmen Wars, and Footmen Wars should be considered in its merits alone. There is no "fairness" involving Wikipedia articles--a subject either merits an article, according to Wikipedia policies & guidelines, or does not. If other Warcraft III custom maps have articles, they are to be considered on their merits. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and more seriously WP:V. JoshuaZ 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:V? --Adam Wang 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both I had also been thinking of the suggestion Mipchunk had. I will see if I can post this suggestion to some talk pages and see what we can come up with. Altair 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 15:39, 28 September 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.