Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy Online


 * 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 of the debate was redirect to Final Fantasy XI. --Cel e stianpower háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Online
While one my favorite websites, it's not-notable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Has an alexa rating of 44,266. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Final Fantasy XI is not and shall never be known as Final Fantasy XI: Online, Final Fantasy Online or any other Final Fantasy containing the word Online. It should be deleted more rather than redirect to Final Fantasy XI. That's simply inappropriate and incorrect. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is true that Final Fantasy XI: Online and Final Fantasy Online are not correct titles. However, it is a common mistake   and thus is an appropriate redirect. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Redirect to Final Fantasy XI. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, but isn't there also a game by this title? 23skidoo 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are thinking of Final Fantasy XI, also known as Final Fantasy XI: Online.
 * Redirect to Final Fantasy XI. Saberwyn 00:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Saberwyn.--Isotope23 01:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"1. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better 2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years 3. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"
 * Quoted from WP:WEB

The site is short on its Alexa, however it has been the subject of media attention, and I am referring to the site itself, rather than the forum. It has a forum with approximately 5,000 members, and has had forum membership above that at times. In addition the policies and procedures of the forum have been a topic of discussion on the internet for many years and its procedures have been a reason for the creation of many other forums in the genre as a model and as a counter. It is historically noteworthy in this regard for its forum mamagement, in addition to its content on the actual site itself. Arckanghel
 * I do consider WP:WEB to be a pretty good guide to which sites are noteworthy. While it is impressive that the site has been covered by Electronic Gaming Monthly, I don't consider this to be a worthy national media source, since it isn't broad in it's subject matter. What is important to EGM isn't necessarily notable. Also, I'd like to know exactly how EGM covered FFO. Was it a full-page article, or just a sentence or two and a URL? 4,776 forum members is close to the guideline (which I feel is too low anyway.) How many of those users are actually active?
 * Basically, I'm still not yet convinced. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The media coverage in print is shown here http://www.ffonline.com/site/press.htm. There has been more in depth coverage in online sources such as ZDNet & IGN, but I don't have a link for those on hand.  As for forum traffic, the wiki page cites 4,776 members, 32,574 threads and 793,855 posts on November 1st, and as of this writing on November 3rd the page reports Threads: 32,691, Posts: 800,693, Members: 4,786. Arckanghel
 * Despite being a member of the site in question, I have to agree with JiFish and others. FFO just does not reach the requirements stated in WP:WEB. There's no two ways about it, and, no matter how many times people link to that mention --- not an article by any means -- in EGM, FFO just doesn't cut it. C-Man
 * I'll concede. There have been a good few arguments for and against on the site itself.  Delete.Arckanghel


 * 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.