Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man (tool-assisted speedrun) (2nd nomination)

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 - Yomangani^talk 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete speedrun vanity, laying fallow for far too long. This came to AFD once before, where it was kept, no consensus, because the author claimed that there was much more that could be said. The closer even commented specifically that, were this article not to improve, it would need to come back to AFD.

That was back in June. Now it's October, and the only edits made to the article since June are the addition of a handful of mirror links (all automatically generated or self-submitted) or other minor corrections. No coverage in reliable sources independent of the creators has been added (TASVideos is an archive of self-submitted speedruns, the Gamespot and YouTube links are merely mirrors.) How long does vanity get to lay around until some effort is made to make the subject encyclopedic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zi741 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A page just for a speed run, and one that wasn't even done naturally? I don't think these should even be mentioned on game pages TJ Spyke 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read up on Tool-assisted speedruns before making such comments, ok? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already know about them, so don't talk to me like that. I don't think they are notable, and certianly not something that warrants being in a encyclopedia. That is stuff that belongs on fansites. Since for some reason they are accepted here though, keep them on the same page as the game. TJ Spyke 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely and utterly fails to meet the requirements of WP:V. --Satori Son 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete As much as I am for TASes in general, I find it hard to justify any run, outside of perhaps the original SMB3 run, notable for it's own page. Maybe a subpage on Notable TAS Runs could be made, as a comprimise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reasons as last time, and article hasn't seen much improvement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hasn't been improved. Hello32020 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, basically vanity. Speedrunning is notable, individual speedruns generally aren't. Compare Quake done Quick for an example of how an individual series of speedruns can be covered in a relatively acceptable way (though I'd prefer to see some third-party references there; I'm pretty sure QDQ got some gaming press coverage that should be dig-uppable.) — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, QDQ is mentioned in most of the sources that I used for Diary of a Camper (a featured article). It definitely can be more thoroughly sourced, and it's on my to-do list.
• Delete - Tool assisted = absolute lose. This isn't QDQ, now, that's skill. - Hahnchen 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give a valid reason for deletion. Right now, you're saying it should be deleted because you don't like it. There is no room for personal opinions on Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't create articles on obscure hobbies taken up by gamers ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to inadequate sourcing. — TKD::Talk 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being unexpandable, being overdetail, and weak sourcing. Interrobamf 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "overly detailed" shouldn't be a valid reason. If the article is notable, it should cover the subject thoroughly, not in parallel to how notable it is. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider this being on the same level of describing every day in the life of a celebrity. It's completely irrelevant in the long run to the main subject, Mega Man in this case, that it's overdetail. Interrobamf 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (btw, natural speedruns are very boring). Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The reason I originally made this page was to describe some of the more typical tool-assisted speedrunning aspects by means of a concrete example, as this is the best textbook example of the phenomenon (and likely, the article would end up being big enough to warrant a split). It probably would have been better if A Man In Black hadn't proposed its deletion, since that's exactly the time that I stopped writing it. :) I'm sorry for making a non-notable article, but will still keep a copy around on my hard disk to move some of its contents back into tool-assisted speedrun. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I read the points you made in the previous AFD. I actually think quite a lot of the things could go into the TAS article, like more on the bisqbot. - Hahnchen 15:12, 12 October 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.