Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SW City

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't tell if the article is trying to claim that this is a micronation or just some sort of role playing, but regardless, it isn't worth an article, especially one of this length. If there was anything worth keeping, it could be in Alphaworld, but ONLY if it's role playing and not micronation nonsense. Note that the article claims that the city was created by SW Comit, and that the article was created by User:Comit. RickK 23:10, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Did you read the article properly? It's part of a virtual world (AlphaWorld) which is part of a virtual universe (Active Worlds). As the largest city in the largest virtual world in one of the oldest virtual universes, I would say that the article is worthwhile. I myself am a citizen of SW City, and the way Active Worlds works, it would not be suited as a subsection on an article on AlphaWorld. Trilliangoose 00:34, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sock puppet whose only edit is to this page. RickK 05:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Indeed, SW City is a household name in this particular genre, and therefore merits an explanatory article. I don't see why this is up for deletion, at all. DeusExMachina 01:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sock puppet whose only edit is to this page. RickK 05:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I only recently signed up as a member; I've been visiting wikipedia for a while now. I never even realised they had a member function until today, surprise surprise. So, no, I'm not a sock puppets. I'm just not an active editor enough yet, but I'm still entitled to an opinion, aren't I? I just want to support the article. DeusExMachina 07:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I've just read the article (properly, I hope), and have not the faintest idea what this is. Apparently it's a city in a virtual world (which nobody has written an article on), which is part of a virtual universe (which nobody has written an article on). All I can gather is that it's something to do with online gaming. And it has incited people to create accounts ([1], [2]) solely for the purpose of contributing to the VFD debate - always a worrying sign. Delete - but I may change my vote if someone can provide some proper context, like AlphaWorld and Active Worlds articles. —Stormie 03:39, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Basically SW City is an online community of a large enough size and age to, in my opinion, warrant it an article. I thought it would be legit here as other private groups, such as bands, have articles too. RickK - yes I wrote the article and founded the city over 5 years ago, but the city was built by over 200 people, and moreso have been involved with it. Granted Active Worlds needs an article to support this one, and I'll look into it ASAP. --Comit 03:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You might want to read Wikipedia:Auto-biography to learn about policies here. Andris 11:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that while SW City was founded by SW Comit, its current mayor is not Comit but Syntax. Trilliangoose 20:10, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. And I dislike sock puppets (accounts created purely for this vote). Andris 11:31, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable; 200 members does not make an online organization encyclopedic. Sean Curtin
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Google "link to" search on www.swcity.net shows only four hits. Google's "contains the term" notes 192 hits but only displays 13, only half of which refer to the site. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You can say that again! Dpbsmith002 12:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete, not notable, vanity. Google "link to" search on www.swcity.net shows only four hits. Google's "contains the term" notes 192 hits but only displays 13, only half of which refer to the site. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • You can say that again! Dpbsmith002 12:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree! Dpbsmith003 12:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Me too! Dpbsmith004 12:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith is a true paragon of sound judgment and wise counsel! DefinitelyNotDpbsmithsSockPuppet 12:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: You know, there is more hosiery on display on one of these debates than at the Victoria's Secret runway show, but it's not as interesting. Fictional worlds and cities take a backseat to reality. The tiniest real town in the infamous Wikipedia census dump is superior, IMO, to the largest micronation or online community in the world. In this case, I vote for deletion based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a web directory, the online community does not establish notability, and this is largely unverified information. I will not debate this, incidentally, so no point in a new user tacking comments on below in argument. Geogre 13:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just not enough people will be interested. I too may change my vote if there is an AlphaWorld article. DJ Clayworth 16:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm awaiting permission from the owners of Active Worlds before writing up an article for it.--Comit 22:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If you doubt the existance of an SW City community, you should take a look at the forum. forum.swcity.net Trilliangoose 20:10, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oi! Stop with the sockpuppets already! You're fooling nobody! PreventCrueltyToSocks 20:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Me? I just mentioned the Wiki article on our forums and two people from there so far have commented here in this dicussion...--Comit 20:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Here is a link to the particular thread. Trilliangoose 22:18, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hmmm ... from reading the thread, I could probably add "purpose is advertising" as a reason for deleting this article, but I'm not a nasty person, so I won't. If these new voters are in fact real persons and not sockpuppets, I'm still not very happy though - I dislike new voters being "bused in" just for the purpose of supporting a certain article - also see the whole Genital Integrity/Intact Day debate elsewhere on this page. I'm still wondering how Wikipedia should handle this type of thing ... maybe disallow people from VfD votes that were created before they became members? Thoughts, anybody? Elf-friend 22:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and I support Geogre's point of view. Elf-friend 21:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought he made good point too untill I noticed other online communities here such as Habbo_Hotel--Comit 22:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • a) So? The part I particularly agree with is: "Fictional worlds and cities take a backseat to reality. The tiniest real town in the infamous Wikipedia census dump is superior, IMO, to the largest micronation or online community in the world." I don't see how your reference could change my opinion regarding that at all. b) "Habbo Hotel": 81,200 Google Hits, including a lot of sites that seem independent from them; "SW City": 4,860 Google hits, many which seem to have no relevance to the SW City mentioned in the article at all. c) Now that you have brought it to my attention, I'm seriously considering putting Habbo Hotel on VfD as well. Elf-friend 22:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to say that I am extremely glad that Angela blanked my talk page but kept my user page with its link to "missing Wikipedians." That being said, I thought I'd drop by. What do I find? Triple feature! Another child porn site, four more vandal bot hits on the new pages and Sockpuppet Central. Gee, I'm so disappointed I left. Idiots like this are the reason this project is going to hell in a handbasket. I'm not certain my vote counts, so I won't cast one. I will say that any temptation I had of either returning or even surfing anonymously is utterly gone. - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand the reasons for the deletion votes and revised the article to be more relevant to Wiki. What do you think? Also, Active Worlds has an article now.--Comit 17:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SW_City&oldid=878438077"