Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeseweb


 * 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. SPA's, anons, newbies ignored. Xoloz 14:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheeseweb
This is about a website that has relatively little going for it. A much larger gaming website got deleted which was much more well known than this site, so it seems very unlikely this should be here, and the other not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KainT40k (talk • contribs) 25 October.
 * Possible single purpose account, probably WP:POINT action related to Articles for deletion/The White Counsil. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The page does not cite references for the history of the site (with the exception of the Ezine) and is also describing a freewebs page. If there was a wikipedia page for all such sites, then we could potentially be flooded by pages of information of little use to anyone. This site already has a mention in the Games Workshop Online community page I believe, maybe some if it could be merged into that. The page as it stands is of little use to anyone, and to me seems more of an advertisement than anything else. - tom ash
 * User second edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Would you mind citing the larger gaming site so I can judge myself?


 * Anyway; This page did have history of the site, and if it doesn't now, it has been due to hacking problems. I will rectify the article if it would improve the situation. I understand your comment about many sites could have a page like this, but CW is a growing site, and having run a successful campaign with another site, the DC, and having a running E-zine onto it's 7th issue next month, it, in my opinion, deserves an article.
 * Another point I'd like to make, is that IMHO, you are putting our article up for deletion because either A) TLA does not have an article, and you see this as competition, which you shouldn't; we are smaller. Or, B) TLA does have an article, and same as point A.
 * Remember that Wiki is a free Encyclopedia for all, and just because you think we don't need an article, doesn't mean we can't have one. Elegost 25 October.

Cheeseweb deserve to keep their's. It is well-written, and features links to other sites. The Last Alliance, on the other hand, do not deserve to keep this, because, out of spite, they have flagged this and several other articles for deletion. Glorfindel1993 18:04, 28 October 2006
 * Keep It also sounds to me that this is a matter of publicity. Cheeseweb have been mentioned in several publications including Battle Games in Middle Earth and White Dwarf, and the occassional gamer looking for details of the forum may stumble across Wikipedia, and then search for it. From this, the neutral can gather that The Last Alliance are jealous that their page has been deleted. Whilst it is true that The Last Alliance is by far the bigger website, the fact it has too been published in White Dwarf with a link, and the fact it is known already across the Games Workshop community shows that it has enough reknown already. This is just childish jealousy; one has their article and the other doesn't so they wat the other gone.


 * Keep Well, I think this stems from the fact that the TLA entry was deleted as it wasn't notable or interesting enough. To be honest I feel both articles should be (or should have been) kept, infighting doesn't really help our cause in general. It seems strange though that an article about a website with almost 90 times as many members, that has been running 3 years longer, has won an award, been published in official Games Workshop publications, appeared on radio, has a community that ties in closely with official Games Workshop goings on and that has run 2 campaigns - on a larger scale - is deleted whilst this one is allowed. I reiterate I don't think this article should be deleted, but also the TLA one should be reinstated... ChrisWilliams1000 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the TLA one should not have been deleted; don't get me wrong, TLA is a good site, but I believe that this whole fiasco is just bad blood that we still have one up and TLA doesn't. I don't see The Chamber of Smaug's, The Dark Council's, or The Alliance of Light's articles flagged. Live and let live. Elegost 19:54, 25 October


 * Keep. About the Last Alliance Article, that shouldn't have been deleted; at the time of writing the style was very messy, covering controversies and individual members without citation. I helped ChrisWilliams1000 clean it up, but it was deleted before I could vote for its retention, so I merged as much as I could into Games Workshop Online Community. If this is the problem (as Elegost and ChrisWilliams1000 suggest), it can easily be redrafted and re-proposed for inclusion.


 * At this time, the Cheeseweb article does give citations and reasons for notability; it is in no need of clean-up and it certainly does not need to be deleted. It was an important tactical base during the War of the Ring Online Campaign. It later ran the Campaign of LoTRs. It has content distributed through e-zines, and has produced Rules Supplements for the game in accordance with . Although TLA has these on a larger scale, it does not mean the CW article should be deleted - merely that the TLA article should be reproposed for inclusion. --Grimhelm 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems that the Last Alliance article was not deleted because of its position, but because it was boring, did not cite its articles, and broke general rules. I for one wouldn’t mind the Last Alliance article being reinstated, but because that article was, forgive me, no good, it does not mean that the Cheeseweb article should be deleted. TLA is definitely more important than Cheeseweb, but it was deleted due to the quality of the article. Aratheking 25 October 2006


 * Also, trying to vandalise and making up facts that everyone hates the site will not help Kain. This is clear from the editing history of the Cheeseweb article, and it seems he is very bitter about the loss of his article, so he is taking it out on someone else. Also, in your reason for deletion, you fail to cite your forum. This is not going to help you. Aratheking 25 October 2006


 * Keep: The fact that The Last Alliance was deleted is highly unfair. However you have no right to consider Cheeseweb's deletion. It is a fan-site, and has too appeared in publications and a production by a Morayshire DJ. It is talked about in various hobby centres, and holds a great magazine.
 * I find it hard to grasp - that - just because your paid for, longer running site, was deleted. Doesn't mean to say that smaller communities have to take the outwash of your anger.
 * If you're unhappy with how Cheeseweb is portrayed, maybe Cheeseweb is the people to contact rather than causing a stir on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Toulac (talk • contribs)
 * Comment, user second edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep A great site for Lotr fans, and a reason why the TLA article should have been accepted --Brizzi2 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Bro1


 * Delete Can someone show me where this site meets WP:WEB? Wildthing61476 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comments above; it was important in the War of the Ring Online Campaign (which was covered in White Dwarf Magazine), and won the event. It has had content distributed through e-zines, rules supplements, hobby articles and other media, and helps run online campaigns for LOTR SBG. --Grimhelm 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be better than !voting keep would be adding references to the article to demonstrate this third party, independent media attention. What magazines, what "other media" ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep A nice site for gamers and proof that TLA should have been accepted Madusmatus 23:38, 25 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.225.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. This afd discussion seems to have been hijacked by people complaining about another afd Bwithh 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I dunno whats is going on, but I have not edited anything, and I'm rather annoyed you say I have. I have no idea what the hell is going on, but I am not a happy camper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KainTLA (talk • contribs) 25 October
 * Comment, KainTLA first and only edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This afd should be considered at WP:DRV for semi-protected do-over Bwithh 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I deduce that this will have been mentioned in White Dwarf, but that won't mean that it meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG. I'm not sure that a semi-protected rerun will help. Anyway, doesn't meet any notability guidelines that I can see. Gnews archive search for cheeseweb finds only "The Cheeseweb" [thecheeseweb.com]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete not notable, fails WP:WEB and flooded with keep votes from single purpose accounts. Anomo 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:WEB, see Articles for deletion/GraalOnline for a similar pattern of events to this AfD, and note the close. Strongly urge the closing admin to consider whether any weighting at all can be given to some of the "keep" !votes above. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.