Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kefka's Revenge

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 delete. – ABCD 18:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Kefka's_Revenge

This is a page that was created by a single user about a video game that's a fan-made reconstruction of Final Fantasy 3 (which in America, never really sold that well anyway…) and it's not finished. I'm sorry, but it's just too soon to write about this game. If it can boast over let's say 100,000 or so users, then yes, maybe it can be added back. But at this point, it's way, way too obscure for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of personal projects. Let's remove this article from now until it achieves some wider notoriety outside the community of FF remake fans. ---Carl 17:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's more than the "coming soon" empty article it started as and it sounds like a rather ambitious project, but right now, it just comes off as original research. - Lucky 6.9 17:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI don't see the big deal. Yeah, it's unfinished, but it has information about the game if anyone was interested about Final Fantasy fan games, and it can always be expanded apaun. I think that rather then deleteing it immediately, we wait for expansion. There is always that possibility. - Dooz0 18:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vaporware game-emulation project. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game may someday become as widely played as Final Fantasy 3 in which case an article can be written to document its notability. Until an actual delivered product generates some notability, and not just a coming-someday announcement or a few rumors on game-chat forums, I can't vote to keep the page. Barno 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete you have to be pretty darn noteworthy to be on wikipedia before you exist. This ain't. --InShaneee 20:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• "KR is nothing but quality." I'm surprised nobody said anything about POV. Delete. Nestea 22:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• What I like is how some of you say that it isn't popular enough, and then if you look at some of the stuff you guys made, no one's heard of a lot of things you made. Lucky 6.9, what is Crusader 101? I've never heard of that. Same thing with Clutch Cargo, Lalo Guerrero, and several other things. Little hypocritical? I mean, isn't there beauty in being able to learn about things you were previously unaware of? Or am I the only one who cares about learning anymore?- Dooz0 22:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Careful with the personal attacks. I've been nice up until now and I don't think it's too much to expect the same in return. Go back and read each of the articles you mentioned. Feel free to Google them as well. I think the articles more than sufficiently cite the notability of their subjects. The "Crusader 101" is one of the most collectable toy cars of the postwar era and when one comes up on eBay, the bidding gets fast and furious. At least one eBay store does a land office business selling reproduction parts. It was also the cover subject of a national publication. "Clutch Cargo" introduced a new optical printing technology and Lalo Guerrero was a national treasure by any yardstick (including that of a President of the United States) and a man I'm proud to have known. I hope this game takes off. I really do. I love FFIII. However, it simply doesn't ring the notability bell at this point. - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't attacking you, I was giving examples. The point was that those aren't popular topics, yet those are good articles. I'm saying that it doesn't need to be popular to be a good article that deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The reason that encyclopedias leave somethings out is because of it can't cover everything. It has limited space. That's the wonder about Wikipedia; There is so much more information here. And one of the reasons for deletion is that it isn't popular enough. I think that's just totally bogus, no offence. There's never anything wrong with having more information. PS: I seem to be inadvertanly attacking you a lot. Do note that none of it has been on purpose. Dooz0 20:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, a Google search results comparison: "Kefka's Revenge" 181; "Crusader 101" 508; "Clutch Cargo" 24,600; "Lalo Guerrero" 33,900. --Carl 14:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. Point taken and apology accepted. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If you feel these article dont meet wikipedia guidelines please by all means put them up for vfd to settle it. Megan1967 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you completely missed my point. Dooz0 02:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the page. Ya know, I admit that I'm the creator of the KR article, and I'm also the creator of the article's subject matter. If you HONESTLY FEEL that your precious "WORLDWIDE FREE PUBLIC" encyclopedia is tainted, or in any way degraded, then go ahead and remove my article. I was only contributing, and I made every attempt to follow the submission guidelines. I went back and reviewed all the policies and sure enough there is legitimate reason to delete this if you want to badly enough, but it's not something blatantly wrong. And it looks as though one of my pals has already removed the biased material as well. Maybe it's not popular enough for you, maybe all my years of dedication and hard work dont impress you, and maybe you think you know everything already and dont deem my project worthy of knowledge. Just remember, if you delete this, you delete my PRIDE and ESTEEM as well. Do you want to do that to an innocent and hard-working man? --Nakednerd 02:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is total bullshit. We are not deleting your pride and esteem, we are deleting what you think is your pride and esteem. Which is silly of you to begin with. You have worked for three years on a game that, from the looks of it, will be polished, will be playable, and possibly will even be good--something that many published games can't honestly boast of (Baten Kaitos for example). Be proud of that. Take esteem in that. Because you should. Three years is an incredible amount of work and dedication, and you have every right to be proud of yourself. What you should not do, however, is be offended when we tell you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, is not for advertisements, and is not for vanity. It's about things that have made an impact, in other words, not about things that will. Very simply: It is not that we do not value your work, it is that this is not the place for you to boast of it. Marblespire 08:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet), speculation. Megan1967 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, simply an advertisement for an uncompleted fan-mod. --Trypa Party 03:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reasons for deletion well established. Quale 03:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• OGM LETS DELETE EVERTHING --Nakednerd 06:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Calm down, OK? No one wants to injure your pride. Look, if you're the one going through the hard work of writing and designing the game, why not move the info to your user page? All you have at present is an odd little sentence. This way, the information stays intact and when the game takes off, boom! Transfer it to a new article. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'll do you one better, Nakey--build your own website and link it to your user profile. When I first got here trying to promote my book Almasheol I found that Wikipedia, like most major bookstores, has an innate prejudice against P.O.D. house-produced books. It bothered me somewhat, but eventually I accepted it. I realize I could sell a thousand copies each of Almasheol and Postcards of the Hanging and still not be seen as anything more than a two-bit "vanity" publisher. I'm sure if I published through a legitimate mainstream house, they'd welcome me gladly, but until then, I'm experimenting with web-distributed chapbooks, 'zines, and other alternative publishing channels. Perhaps you can donate copies of your game to public and school libraries--better distribution, great publicity stunt. It's what I'm planning to do with my books. The_Iconoclast 19:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember those! Looking back, I may have been a bit harsh in my voting. If so, I'm truly sorry. Are the books selling? - Lucky 6.9 22:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not yet. I've won a couple of minor awards, though, for my work in Writer's Digest-sponsored contests (who have done quite a bit to legitimize self-published writers, God bless 'em). I even did a web-interview last year, and some movie people I've talked to think one of my stories has great film potential. I'm afraid, however, I still haven't seen what I'd call "mainstream" success. Whatever that is. I'm trotting a new novel around to legitimate houses through an agent this time, though all they seem to be doing so far is drinking my wallet dry. Ten-percenters, yeesh. The thought of paying someone to print your work is such a stigma, so the P.O.D. writer will always labor under a cloud--but I do enjoy designing my own covers and I like the freedom the format offers. The major houses are very cliquey and incestuous, wanting to stay with big names and not giving new authors a chance. A thought: are there competitions for self-produced video games? Once N.N. has a workable prototype of his game, he could send it to them for a review. The_Iconoclast 14:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• I just made a daring stunt as a final slap in your face by editing the article so that it meets your standards of being notable and popular. While I agree that vanity pages should not exist here (pages created to promote one's self or one's work), I still think it deserves to stay because it has an informative approach and it certainly does have significance as stated in the opening of the article. I realize it will be deleted nonetheless, so go ahead and have a field day. Moving it to my user page would defeat the purpose -- I only registered so that I could create the article. The fact is, KR will never be notable or famous according to yous, but its mere oppressed existence is more than evidence of encyclopedic qualification. Or something?? Nobody cares about a Naked Nerd, other than wanting to get rid of him. So LATER dudes. --Nakednerd 12:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh...NN, first calm down. Second, consider the fact that you're adding an article about a as-yet unreleased product on a general reference site with articles on people, places and things that have come before. Simply put, Wikipedia is quite possibly the world's biggest stinkbomb of a site when it comes to promotion of any kind. I work in an advertising and marketing capacity. I've won awards for my schtick. I cannot write an article in the same breezy style I write a radio ad. Wikipedia is dry, dry, dry. I think "Kefka's Revenge" is going to be a knockout. When that time comes and it's a well-known game, it'll be more than deserving of an article and I'll defend its right to be here. Don't leave over this. You're obviously an intelligent (if sensitive) person. I can really relate with the "sensitive" part. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• How 'bout now? Is it good enough yet? --Nakednerd 22:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Among the article content added in the latest edit is "The responses were discouraging and impetuously negative, yet the duo retained their integrity and superiority." The disclaimer at the end, though valid, lacks encyclopedic style. Encyclopedias need much less bogosity (except on 01-April, which this isn't). And Lucky 6-point-9 was correct: It's got possible future notability but doesn't yet have verifiable notability to WP's standards. For now, you can userfy all this, and once there's a hundred thousand or some huge numbers of players in several English-speaking nations (this is the "en." Wikipedia), you are welcome to put it back into article namespace as a starting point for other editors to work with. And Lucky's also correct that you're fully welcome to help the rest of us collaborate, regardless of whether your article gets deleted in this case. By the way, "playing the villain" is a more interesting approach than most games have, and KR has a better chance than most computer games to achieve notability. Barno 01:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• NN, I don't think you get the point. Just beacuse it exists does not make it notable. It must be notable in order to stay on Wikipedia. Kefka's Revenge, so far, has no notability whatsoever. It's just another fangame. If something happens to it, such as it getting wide popularity, then it IS notable. Nestea 22:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think YOU get the point. What's the big deal about notability? I bet there's tons of shit on this site thats barely notable. KR is notable enough for me. Why do you care so much?--Nakednerd 03:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I care so much because Wikipedia does not revolve around you. Nestea 11:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Nor around you. Dooz0 04:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Nor around you. It's the people's encyclopedia! Nestea 20:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Once more: Notability to the public-at-large is the prime factor for inclusion. At present, your rather ambitious and worthy project is virtually unknown. No one...and I mean no one...is going to come here and search for "Kefka's Revenge." Why? No one other than you, I and a handful of Wikipedia users even knows it exists, at least not yet. You're right in pointing out that there are articles on lots of really esoteric subjects. However, esoterica and obscurity do not necessarily mean non-notable. I've written about some rather esoteric subjects myself. BUT: Everything I've written about is notable in some way and I go to great pains to indicate that in each article. If I may offer some further advise, it would be this: Lose the chip on your shoulder, my friend. You are taking this matter too personally and lashing out at other users isn't exactly according to Dale Carnegie. You've been treated with a great deal of kindness, respect and support. Please consider doing the same in return. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Growth potential. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:28, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Fantasy future-ware with less than 70 displayed hits and no Alexa rank. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, five-line sigs not withstanding. Niteowlneils 17:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, based on the nonsense in the history section. CDC (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and article is unverifiable; no reliable secondary or tertiary sources corroborate the facts in this article (what facts there are). JRM · Talk 18:15, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• A semi-well-done article about something that at this point does not deserve an article. Delete. DS 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Try again if and when it happens and is verifiable. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Look, man, think of the precedent this would be setting. Do you have any idea how many fangames there are that can claim to be of similar quality and merit to Kefka's Revenge? Not that are, but that can claim to be. What makes this different from all the creative and fanfic projects that I started, or that anyone else does? What makes it inherently better? What makes you so special? Those aren't necessarily rhetorical questions, by the way. If you have valid answers, by all means, this is the place to provide them. DS 17:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I never said we're special. And I dont want to exlude other fangames, either. That's why I listed them in my article. I dont see anything wrong with having fangames on this encyclopedia website. If you want it to be so professional then maybe it should be published instead of being openly editable. Isn't it the point to allow the community to add more content? I understand sometimes stuff would be inappropriate and not worthy, but surely this article is developed and informative enough to warrent a small page of its own. No big deal. --Nakednerd 18:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) And by the way, we're special because we have playable content, something that most other games never achieve. That's stated in the article, I believe.
• Delete. Non-notable. There are thousands upon thousands of user-created mods to old Nintendo ROMs, or games which individuals have made with shareware RPG maker type software. Notability in the case of an independently developed video game would probably require some sort of legitimate site reviewing it, at the very least. ESkog 18:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• The article appears to be at least half BS. How could you draw up a pie graph like that? I mean, how would you calculate the percentages? And at the end of one section, it says that the section is bogus. Sure, a fan-made game like this could be notable enough, but I'm not seeing any evidence that this one is. Delete. Everyking 08:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• You guys are using the word NOTABLE so damn much that I had to go look up its definition to make sure I remembered what it means. It means something is worthy of notice, or is characterized by excellence or distinction. By this definition, I see no valid reason why KR' "non-notability" should render it deletable. I think it certainly is notable according to this definition. It mentions nothing about FAME or FORTUNE like all you seem to value so much. The game I am making is remarkable. I don't care how many people are unaware of it yet, but it's true. So stop going delete crazy on my notable project. Either that or come up with a better argument. If fame is your game, then youre lame. HA! (but do NOT take it personally) because as stated before, there exists other articles pertaining to lesser known topics. Thanks bros! --Nakednerd 12:18, 7 May 2005 (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.