Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia (3rd 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. Mango juice talk 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FFXIclopedia
Article covering a wiki about the game Final Fantasy XI. The first two afds resulted in delete and no consensus. Imo, it is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia and fails WP:V and WP:WEB. The notability template has been slapped on the article but the editors have not provided any evidence of significant coverage by any reliable sources since the last afd and have removed the notability template. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 33,697, it scores 12,300 google hits, wiki has received about 15 million page views and has about 5000 editors.

To compare: Lostpedia, a wiki about the series lost also had its article removed (a correct decision imo) and has an Alexa ranking of 11,175, scores 118,000 google hits, had about 19 million page views and has a similar amount of editors (about 5000). Also, lostpedia received some minor coverage (Business weekly, scifi.com), something which I consider the most important factor when determing notability about a website and as I've already said, the editors of the FFXIclopedia article still haven't provided any evidence of outside coverage by reliable sources (WP:RS). Peephole 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Computer and video games deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, or merge/redirect to Final Fantasy XI in the external links section. There is at least one close precedent for this that I am aware of: GuildWiki (AfD) and GameWikis (AfD), which were both deleted on account of non-notability, despite GuildWiki having an Alexa rank in 6k range, and being one of the largest MediaWiki sites out there, and beating the English Wikipedia itself in number of pageviews. We have high standards of notability for game-related wikis (that I do support). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better to merge/redirect with the main Final Fantasy XI article. -- Big  top  18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and above. For all the adamant "keep" arguments we saw at the last AfD for this article, and despite all the pleading for reliable sources, this article still blatantly fails WP:V. There's been plenty of time to fix this, and plenty of explanations how to do so. A delete would be preferable (as it appears to be simply not notable enough) as I fear a redirect would simply be repetitively transformed back into an article. However if there's not enough consensus for delete then Redirect. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge to Final Fantasy XI. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Final Fantasy XI. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. By the way, now that I think about it, Lostpedia shouldn't have been deleted on notability grounds. There's no indication that this particular site is known for its contributions, so we should nuke it. Captainktainer * Talk 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, this site is not noteworthy for its contributions, and technically fails WP:WEB. The article still fails the verifiability policy. I agree with AbsolutDan, there's been plenty of time to make changes - nothing has been done, so it's time for the article to go. Add a link to the external links section of Final Fantasy XI. Redirect at the very least. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without merge. FFXIclopedia is already in the external links section of Final Fantasy XI and has been for quite some time.  Thatdog 07:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep We have been trough this two times before, leave it be. Havok (T/C/c) 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes we have been through this twice - the first time the outcome was delete (the article was later re-created) and the second was no consensus. Not exactly evidence that it should be kept. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And if it is removed again, it will only be added, again. Does it hurt WP that much that it stays on? Havok (T/C/c) 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because what use are standards such as WP:WEB if they can be tossed aside at will? If it is reposted in a substantially identical form after this AfD achieves a consensus to delete, then the reposted page will be a candidate for speedy deletion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw on the second nomination that someone was arguing that FFXIclopedia had been used as a source in Wikipedia and cited Final Fantasy XI character classes as an example. I am largely responsible for the current content of that page and I took absolutely none of it from FFXIclopedia.  I don't have strong feelings one way or another about the AfD, but I do feel strongly that if the argument is to be used that FFXIclopedia is being used as a source on Wikipedia and that's why it's notable, I should point out that at least in one of the cases where it's being claimed as a source, the claim is untrue. -RaCha&#39;ar 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: moreover, there is an explicit admonishment against using wikis as sources for WP in WP:RS. Even were FFXIclopedia inadvertently sourced or cited here, such citations should be removed. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: The having the ext. link to the wiki on the FF XI page is good enough. What's there to be said about this wiki that it deserves its own article? It's 4th most popular on Alexia? It's a portmanteau of FFXI & encyclopedia? It has 4,592 users? --Mitaphane talk 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Final Fantasy XI, as it's still a useful link nonetheless. How does it fail WP:V though?  It's vertifiable since we know it exsists. -- gakon5 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: To meet WP:V there must be citations from reliable sources. A link to the site itself only proves that it exists - in this case to make it worthy of an article some other reliable sources must discuss the website to back its claims. I could start my own website and say "I have a billion users!" and "I'm the most visited site on the Internet!". Someone else must back up the claims made (and no, Alexa is not a reliable source). --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect and have one line in the external links section leading to the wiki and briefly explaining it :) &mdash; Deckill e r 05:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: If it were a webcomic, those alexa scores would convince any deletionist to keep it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fortunately, it's not a webcomic. --TheEmulatorGuy 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, our webcomic standards are a bit more lax, aren't they. --Kunzite 17:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per my comments in the previous AfD.--Kunzite 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Aquillion 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to external links. Mitaphane is exactly right - there is nothing interesting or non-obvious for this article to say. - Wickning1 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The main argument for deleting is notability. I'd like to point out that FFXIclopedia has gained rank in Alexa ratings moving from the #4 spot, to the #3 spot passing the official Final Fantasy XI website. THAT is notable.  You also keep quoting guidelines and not policies.  Guidelines are just that, they are not the rule. --Ganiman 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, WP:V is policy. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice that the person who nominated this page is a main contributor to the WoWWiki page. Again, this page has all the same information as the WoWWiki page.  As I stated in the last AfD discussion, if you want to delete this, then the WoWWiki needs a nomination as well. Regarding notability:  All your statements about total users and total traffic and total Alexa rankings are in absolutes.  They are not in relative terms.  Relative to the FFXI universe, FFXIclopedia is extremely notable.  As stated above, it is now the third most trafficked FFXI website, behind one site that caters to 8 MMORPGs, and another that is the premier database for FFXI material.  FFXIclopedia is the premier site for FFXI guides and other information on the web.  It has even surpassed the official game website for traffic.  However, all these numbers are relative.  You all seem to want to ignore relative figures.  FFXIclopedia is notable.  Just because you have never heard of it, does not make it non-notable.  Within the FFXI community, of which none of you appear to be a part, FFXIclopedia is one of the most notable sites. Regarding verifiability:  Ok, it can't be verified.  Which is why I mention WoWWiki.  The person who nominated this page, is a significant editor of the WoWWiki page.  Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?  Especially when both their entries look almost exactly the same.  However, because more people play WoW, any AfD discussion, no matter how weak the arguments, will defeat the nomination.  Check out the previous arguments to save the WoWWiki:  Articles_for_deletion/WoWWiki.  None of them were even nearly as deep as the ones made to save the FFXIclopedia.  In sum, they said, "It's popular, keep."  Nothing about verifiability, nothing. This whole debate is hypocritical.  If you are going to have such a huge stick up your ... then nominate WoWWiki for deletion too.  The original person to nominate this article, for the third time I might add, is the biggest hypocrit of them all. I have nothing further.  Just delete it.  The Wikipedia as a whole is a farse.  It's editors rule in their own little feifdom and cry foul when anyone pushes them out of sorts.  I'm almost ashamed to admit that we both you the same base MediaWiki code.  Wikipedia editors are a disgrace. --Rolks 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fuck you . I'm not a significant editor of the WoWWiki page at all. All I did was slap a notability tag and some statistics on that article. If you don't like it here, go away. --Peephole 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Personal attacks and outright rudeness are not welcome in Wikipedia. Please redact your comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've striked out my comments, let's hope mister rolk does the same. --Peephole 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is obligated to perform any particular work on any article here. If you feel another article does not comply with policy, feel free to make the change yourself. There's even a template message that addresses this point: sofixit. If this means nominating it for deletion again, go right ahead. We cannot allow ourselves be bound by problems that exist with other articles; otherwise we would never make any progress here. Each article must meet WP guidelines or face deletion/redirection, etc. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything AbsolutDan has to say about this AfD is notable. He is completely biased about this article and no matter what evidence is presented supporting this article, he will continue to fight it.  His previous arguments in the second nomination failed to cause the article to be removed, and it should be no different here.  Showing proof of how similar articles are allowed to exist, but being just as non-notable as this article is a completely valid method for keeping this article.  You claim that "we would never make any progress", yet that is how the world works.  I've watched enough Law and Order (haha joke here) to know that in a courtroom you present previous cases to build your own. I also believe that the people who are part of the Final Fantasy XI community should be the judges on the notability of this article.  Just because something doesn't appear in a newspaper or other "reliable source" doesn't mean it's notable to enough people. What we have here is a number of people, who know nothing about the Final Fantasy XI community, arguing the validity of this article.  As I've said before, that's just laughable. --Ganiman 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ganiman: Considering you have just nominated WoWWiki for deletion (Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (second nomination)), would you please change your vote above to delete as well? Unless you feel FFXIclopedia is exempt from the rules you quote at the AfD? --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not change my vote. They are making the same arguments to keep their article that we are making here.  WoWWiki is a notable resource of information for World of Warcraft players.  No wikipedian can say otherwise.  This entire ordeal about deleting these specific types of articles should raise discussion on a new type of policy.  These types of articles fall into a very gray area in Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  Things get bad before they get better.  I believe the arguing on both sides here should be enough to begin a topic on creating a policy to govern these types of articles. Guildwiki, FFXIclopedia and WoWWiki will not be the last of it's kind to find their way here.  They are probably the top resources for people in each of their respective communities, which is absolutly notable, wether or not they are talked about in some reliable source. --Ganiman 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the Final Fantasy XI article. RFerreira 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this final [if only!] fantasy cruft, what with Wikipedia not being a web directory and all that. -- Hoary 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To all participants: Ahem! Uncle G 00:51, 11 August 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.