This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Sturmgrenadier[edit]

• Delete. I put this article up for VFD, unfortunately I am not as skilled as other in Wiki, so I did not add a comment on this page. I freely admit I'm a Wiki noob. The Sturmgrenadier page needs to deleted much like the Sunder page was deleted. Each to a degree reads like an advertisement of their organizations. Neither group has accomplished any monumental tasks that would be referenced in any normal encyclopedia. The fact is that Sturmgrenadier was briefly mentioned in an article in 2003, however many companies/people/and events have been mentioned in that paper, but do not warrant a entry. If 800+ members and a newspaper entry is required to become a Wiki entry then perhaps my son's Boyscout troop/pack should have an entry as they have been in the newspapers (Philadelphia papers, and Trenton papers) many times and sport over 2500 current/past members. I vote for a merge with a bigger article. BTW: I am a current Sunder member. Magen 14:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I started this flame war, but I am not Siegmund. I find it laughable that the guys at Syndicate are so dumb to believe Sieg did this. I am ex-SG. I hate SG. But I'm not Siegmund. Same reasons for which this was started, delete it due to it being a commercial advertisement. BTW: Why is Sieg back in SG? Wasn't he removed? --65.49.152.201 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In all fairness I must qualify that I am ex-SG but... I can see little reason why a gaming club deserves it's own entry in an encyclopedia. There is nothing about SG that is unique, or original, regardless of how fine an organization anyone may think it is. Additionally, the only proponents for keeping the page are the author (who is the SG PlanetSide RECRUITMENT officer, and other SG members. This is clearly a RECRUITMENT strategy. And, as SG has membership dues, also a COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT.-User:Siegmund

  (This was this user's first edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης))

• Keep. I vote for retention.... (I also voted for retention of the wiki entry for Sunder - I suspect they should share the same fate or at least have the same criterion for retention/deletion) --Habap 11:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I vote For Deletion based on the fact that the Wiki Entry for sunder is also up for deletion. A general entry on MMORPG and FPS guilds of large size should be added but nothing specific to one guild is warrented at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.167.128 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 Jun 2005
  • This is this user's only edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)
• Keep or merge with a larger article concerning large MMO groups. The large and organized MMO group is not a fluke - there's a couple of notable ones out there, and I think they merit an article in wikipedia. Sturmgrenadier has been mentioned in mainstream news media (USA Today, June 24, 2003). The sites are ranked on Alexa, SGHQ.com getting 1,470,744 and Sturmgrenadier.com getting 249,479 place - which is pretty high up on the list of 7 million plus sites. I think its notable enough to be worth a mention. FYI, I am also the creator of the SG article. ChronoSphere 17:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find something odd about the fact that the proposer apparently created an account only to bring this VfD, and has done nothing alse with it. (This discussion is, incidentally, pretty messy, with unsigned votes and oddly formatted messages. The article also needs work, as it reads more like something in a house magazine than an encyclopædia article.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, we have hotheads here who are here solely to remove this page, as such they really don't understand wiki formatting or how to sign messages. ChronoSphere 00:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't easy to see who started the VfD, but in fact it was an anon: 68.36.26.86 (talk · contribs), who seems not to have participated in the discussion. So far, only three people whose votes are likely to count have voted: Chronosphere, Habap, and me. The rest of the page is either completely anon or left by Siegmund. I've just refactored it, in an attempt to make things easier for the admin who has to deal with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I vote also for retention. If we are going to genericize all MMOFPS/MMORPG clans and outfits, we might as well do the same to all of the MMOFPS/MMORPG's out there as well. SG is unique, that is a fact, and it deserves it's own entry. Disgruntled ex-members pushing their own agendas should not take away from that. Destinova1 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I outlined on my vote at Sunder.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Largely irrelevant) discussion[edit]

• Comment You know what's also interesting Destinova? You guys speak about "exclusive closed betas", but you continuily preached that you were going to get into F.E.A.R's closed beta but it never happened. INTERESTING ISN'T IT. And people are flip-flopping because Sunder and SG are essentially the same thing, and if Sunder goes down this should go down.

--65.49.152.201 23:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Rebuttal Sorry, we never had any agreement to get into F.E.A.R. that I know of. SG and Sunder have nothing in common, let alone being 'essentially the same thing'. Please. Destinova1 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal I was in SG when it happened, don't bother denying it. Spoon bragged that you guys were going to get into F.E.A.R, and now you all deny it because it never actually happened. It had it's own forum, for christ sakes. There's a bucket of "confidential" information I could leak about this organization. --70.24.219.247 13:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, we've never had a FEAR forum either. You must have been a very active and engaged member. Destinova1 19:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure you're confusing F.E.A.R. with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. IIRC, the closed beta of Stalker simply never happened. It was a failure on the part of the developer, not Sturmgrenadier. Disappointing either way. As I understand it, Stalker will be released eventually. --Habap 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I find it quite tiresome that former members are continually referred to as, "disgruntled ex-members whom push their own agendas." The fact of the matter is I am not disgruntled. The cold hard fact of the matter is that SG much like Sunder has done nothing notable to honestly retain any type of entry in Wiki. If a newspaper mention, and membership base happened to be a criteria for an entry into Wiki then every school PTO, boy scout troop, and clan/outfit/gaming group would warrant an entry. How is SG unique? What goal has it accomplished that no other group has ever done? Did SG win the cyberathelitic competition? Did SG/Sunder/or any other group accomplish something that none other has ever done? Face the facts, anyone that knows anything about alexia's rankings understand how they are not accurate, and infact there are many programs available to skew results. Get off the personal attack trip, does Sturmgrenadier/Sunder/and any other group warrant an entry at this point in time? Magen 15:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal It is not a personal attack, we've had two users already blank this article and vandalize both it and my userpage (User:Siegmund and User: 65.49.152.201, who has already been banned for 24 hours due to vandalism). In that case, we do have ex-SG members, who are disgruntled, as evident by their behavior on Wikipedia. The statement is therefore correct. I don't think anything you have done falls into that catagory - if you feel that was directed at you, thats a personal issue. Also, you mentioned on your merge on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunder that you believe the SG page should be merged as well. Are you going to change your vote here to reflect that? You've advocated several positions on both pages, and I have to admit to be confused as to what your intentions are. ChronoSphere 18:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal Yes, I will be changing my back to deletion from a merge. SG is not notible enough (IMHO), their article reads like an advertisement. Magen 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Note It is interesting to note that this vote has now flip-flopped from delete to merge, and now back to delete since the Sunder page was deleted. Destinova1 17:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Rebuttal The newspaper article is not the crux of the argument here. SG has done things that no other gaming clan/outfit/organization has done. However, if you feel so strongly, then I encourage you to start articles on the above mentioned PTO's, boy scout troops, etc. Destinova1 22:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal Please expounded the accomplishments of SG, and how they have accomplished things that no other gaming clan/outfit/organization in history has ever done. Please provide a link to such articles, newspaper entries, and works which support this claim. Magen 13:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Since this does not pertain to the VfD, but is a general request for information, it is being moved to the Sturmgrenadier talk page to be addressed. ChronoSphere 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • It has already been disclosed that I am an SG member, and that we do have a random wikipedian, Mel Eletis voting for retention. He was also refering to you that we had an account solely created to vote for deletion. Also, since we are disclosing our interests in this discussion, Seigmund is a former SG member as of yesterday. The SG leadership had asked all SG members to refrain from posting in the wikipedia disputes on this and the Sunder articles until things simmered down. Seigmund removed the entries that Habap and I had added in order to better balance the article, which can be seen here, (his IP was 68.59.90.110) and left a derogatory remark involving douche-bags. He did this anonymously, and was linked to him via his IP as reported on Wikipedia. Due to his violation of the SG charter and going against the express orders not to interfere, he was removed. This infers that he created his account solely to vote on the article in favor of deletion to further his vendetta. Siegmund, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not really a democracy, an Admin will read these votes, read the reasonings behind them, and consider whether or not the vote was done in good faith, then the Admin will make the ultimate decision in light of the recommendations. As such, you vote probably isn't going to be weighed very much. ChronoSphere 00:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't start the Vote for Deletion. I don't even know HOW to start a vote for deletion. In fact..the vote for deletion began before I was ever kicked out. I didn't discover that until this morning. Furthermore, really... c'mon... It's a freakin GAMING CLAN! Nothing nominal about it.-Sieg

• Notice As a Disclaimer, ChronoSphere originally wrote this article back in December, and both he and Habap are current members of Sturmgrenadier. ChronoSphere 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that there is also an article on Maza Online Gaming Community, a Greek group of this type. I've also created a stub for Online Gaming Organizations, though I suspect that due to disagreements between some of the groups that it either only list them at the end or not mention any specifically. --Habap 17:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  So, I decided to check for other, similar organizations and pages. I found Sogamed, Team 3D, Ninjas in pajamas, Theafers, and Phaze II. So, perhaps there is a need for either a clean sweep or expansion of that stub I created? --Habap 18:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can this VfD be closed now? Looks like it's been a month and perhaps indicates no consensus....

Yes, same here. Can an admin take care of this already? ChronoSphere 7 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Well if this were the supreme court it would be a 5-4 decision in favor of a delete, Supreme court rules on a majority opinion. (5 delete votes, 4 keep votes). Magen 8 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Ah, but Wikipedia is not the Supreme Court and while they are called votes, they are not just tallied. An administrator reviews the votes, weighs the arguments and decides what to do. Votes by anonymous IPs tend to be ignored. Votes by those who have not contributed to Wikipedia except for voting for deletion tend to have less weight. Votes with good arguments by long-time, prolific Wikipedians tend to get more weight. In looking over the votes, I think only Mel and Chris fall into that last category and they are split. Chrono and I are minor contributors - at the time of the VfD start in June, a lot of our work was on this article. If no consensus is reached, normally the VfD is considered failed. It seems to me that this is the case here. Few normal Wikipedians expressed any interest and they were divided on the issue, so no consensus. --Habap 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the process, it is much appreciated. Thankfully, a wikipedia administrator, not you or I will decide the fate of this "Encyclopedia" entry.  :) cheers.. Magen 8 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.