Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiracing

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 keep. Nom has withdrawn their nomination, and all !votes are keep (non-admin closure) First Light (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiracing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion proposal tag removed by author, so I will now nominate it. Rotorcowboy (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author here. The topic, while admittedly navel gazing, is also notable. It was the topic of a three page article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, a two page article in the Star Tribune and was part of a research study by the Semantic Technology Institute International (+others). Links in article. Keep. JORGENEV 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously well-referenced and notable. Note that the nominator gives absolutely no reason for deletion, which makes it impossible to respond to their nomination. First Light (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his favor the article had less references when he nominated it for deletion (although, not in his favor, he did give me two final warning templates for contesting the prod tag). JORGENEV 05:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm amazed that this subject, after being deleted 33 different times from the mainspace under 32 different names, including 22 deletions via AfD, may finally have a chance of passing an AfD. No recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 separate referenced news articles and one technical report -- meets notability criteria despite navel gazing -- Samir 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator. Wikipedia already has such an article in the Wikipedia namespace: Wikipedia:Wikirace. (Also, please focus on the content in this discussion. Thank you.) Rotorcowboy (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Per WP:DISCUSSAFD the nominator is assumed to want to delete, so isn't supposed to !vote. Would you consider striking your delete (although not your comments, of course) to avoid making work for the closing admin? Also, it's absolutely standard to point out that the nominator hasn't provided a deletion rationale if that's the case, as it is here; it's hardly a personal attack. (I assume that that's why you're piping phrases to WP:NPA here. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Rotorcowboy, could you please point out where there was a personal attack? That would help others to respond to your accusation/implication. WP:NPA#WHATIS gives some examples of different types of personal attacks, as a way of helping editors understand what is a personal attack. Thanks for giving a reason for your nomination, but an "article" with the same name in Wikipedia space is not a valid reason for deleting an article in mainspace. They serve different purposes and a different audience. WP:Wikirace is part of a WikiProject (Department of Fun Wikiproject) and it's purpose is to humor Wikipedia editors. A Wikipedia reader interesting in finding an article about Wikiracing couldn't be expected to search the Wikipedia space. First Light (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I found the beginning of this discussion to be an "attack" since I felt that they were addressing more me and less the content, as explained on the at the attack page's nutshell. It appears to me that, at this point, a concensus has been reached, so I would like to withdraw my nomination for Wikiracing's deletion. On a side note, this is my first actual dispute on Wikipedia and my first AfD discussion. I obviously need more experience, and I thank you all for your input. Rotorcowboy (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it looks as though this now has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Francis Bond (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Demonstrates notability through the coverage in reliable sources - it's not naval-gazing, as long as we cover it in the same way we would if it were about any other subject Chzz ► 10:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obivously notable game given the amount of reliable sources. As a side note, I have played this game once or twice, and it's quite fun. Once I got from Sonic The Hedgehog to Shyness. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how many clicks?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Some of the refs are derivative from others or not from sources usually judged WP:RS, and could be removed. Edison (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reliable sources are available, and in the article, which address the topic in detail: [1], [2], [3]. No specific rationale to delete is present in the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources there. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2011 (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.