Talk:Milkman Conspiracy
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Milkman Conspiracy has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
delete it
[edit]Aside from the reasons i already listed it lacks any historical significance aside it from "its kinda funny" and articles on specific video game LEVELS are rare and should have some historical importance to them. this article feels redundant NoKNoC (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was judged to be a "Good Article" so it's not eligible for speedy deletion. If you think it should be deleted you would have to start a discussion at WP:AFD. ... discospinster talk 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NoKNoC: This article subject meets the general notability guideline, through being covered in-depth by sources considered reliable. I understand that you feel scandalized by the existence of an article on a niche topic, but we don't disqualify a subject from having an article because we don't think it should've been covered by sources. I also have to say that if you think an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the proper avenue, as Discospinster mentioned above, is WP:AFD. A Good Article Review is a community process for reviewing and improving articles that seem to fall short of the GA criteria, not a way to get them deleted.--AlexandraIDV 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Articles for video game levels aren't rare though? Your reasoning here is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it's on the verge of disruptive editing. Cite legitimate policies or give a decent rationale behind why the article should be deleted instead of borderline vandalizing the article. λ NegativeMP1 02:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Speedy kept, nominator didn't leave a proper rationale as you're supposed to. λ NegativeMP1 15:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
goes in unnecassary detail, skewed more towards the games favor, seems unnecessary for a article on just one level just for its humorous content, not well written NoKNoC (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
This is an inactionable GAR, so you are going to need to elaborate more than that.
- Can you provide examples where the article goes into unnecessary detail?
- Can you provide examples of how the article skews towards the game (and, frankly, what that even means)?
- Can you provide the GA criteria that "seeming unnecessary" fails?
- Can you provide examples of issues with the quality of the writing?
As it is, it just seems to me like you don't like the article, and are in turn coming up with reasons to have it deleted that are not relevant to any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I did some minor cleanup and did not notice anything unusual. The article still meets the WP:GA? criteria after 4 years of its first GA nomination. Looking at the article history, its talk page, and the recent AfD, this rather seems to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:GAR states: "
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
" The nominator did not specify or provide examples, so I'd recommend to speedily close this if the nominator does not respond. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)