Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games Workshop Online Community (2nd 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. No evidence provided that would satify the requirements of WP:V. Neil  ム  14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Games Workshop Online Community

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are no independent reliable sources supporting the notability of this community, and searching for it in Google and Google News does not find anything helpful either. The notability of the subject is not established and probably can't be established. It should be deleted as non-notable. Reinistalk 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Furthermore, the previous AFD for this article was a failure in that no rationale for the verdict was offered, merely vacuous claims. --Agamemnon2 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I'm slightly annoyed the closing admin didn't explain his verdict, though I understand that is not compulsory. --Agamemnon2 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant community, definitely moreso when the official boards were open. Since the closing of the official forums, the community has dispersed across many other sub-communities. The reason why searching for it is difficult is because it does not exist as one "Games Workshop Online Community". Search for the different games. They are bundled together in one article as a list with the company that makes the games as a common denominator. Shrumster 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, says who? Are there any reliable and independent sources that support this assertion that these communities are notable? Reinistalk 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Online communtites are often not notable because of there transitory nature. This community may be long standing, but it doesn't add anything to human knowledge. Operating 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this reason relates to WP:Deletion policy, or to any WP guideline.DGG (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It relates to WP:N and the general philosophy of Wikipedia, that it's not an indiscriminate conglomeration of information. Reinistalk 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: the problems stem from the first sentence: "The Games Workshop Online Community refers to the registered members of any internet fora or websites specifically for Games Workshop's miniature wargames, including The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000, and the influence that the community has on these products." Without a reliable source who has actually said this, the article is essentially original research in that it is describing a "community" which does not exist in any verifiable sense. None of the sites mentioned in the article would be notable on their own given a complete lack of third party coverage of them, and bundling them together under a made-up term doesn't make the group notable. Basically, it's a well disguised web directory. --Pak21 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: As to the sites being grouped together under specific games, I would refer you to this publication of the "Lord of the Rings Online Community":  213.202.136.136 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging by the metrics the site displays, my own personal site receives more attention in a week than it has received in a year. It's just not a reliable source. Reinistalk 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "My site is more popular than X, therefore X is not a reliable source." is not a valid argument. If it is, then some of the sites covered by the article such as WS, B&C, Waaagh and LO are definitely more "reliable". Shrumster 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For a site or journal to be reliable, it needs to have a certain reputation, and if almost no one reads it, it can't have that, therefore it can't be reliable. It is a valid argument, and the other sites are more qualified in this respect, but still fail for other reasons. Reinistalk 06:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Site statistics can be misleading, and it's neither a measure of reliability or notability. For just one example, it is possible that readers bypass the site homepage and go straight to downloading the magazine. Also, 34 pages is more than White Dwarf magazine typically has on LotR, and that's ignoring the differences in quality (much of WD's content is advertising). While mentioning White Dwarf, it is also worth note that articles from the online website are in WD, which is published globally (including tens of thousands of copies sold in the UK each month). The magazine's recognised position in miniature wargaming would also add weight to its use as a source in the article. --Grimhelm 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I'm just saying that relative popularity is prerequisite for having any kind of a reputation. Even if the journal was popular (which is doubtful), it would still not be an independent source and therefore wouldn't be suitable for verifying the notability of the subject. Reinistalk 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what the original point was was that it shows there is a "Games Workshop Online Community" grouped around specific sites, and even as a primary source it is fine for that purpose. --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Shrumster, and would say that the "Official Community" and "Worldwide Campaigns" sections are, in particular, well written, cited and notable. I think with regard to the unofficial sites, specific items of notability are given - among other things the effect that these websites have had on Games Workshop products. Although the "wider community" section splits into the individual games, as Shrumster notes, a look at any of the sites mentioned will show that there is overlap between them (and the different GW games); the magazine mentioned above does highlight the case of a LotR community existing, spanning three or four major sites (as it happens, two of these are the only specific sites mentioned here). The term "Games Workshop Online Community" is also used by GW itself (eg. ).
 * I think the article is interesting and informative, and explains the subject's importance on a miniature wargaming hobby to the uninvolved reader, rather than being "just a web directory". The article itself was also majorly improved after a GA review, and I'm sure with only a slight amount of work it could pass a second review.  --Grimhelm 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still no independent reliable sources affirming the notability of the subject. Reinistalk 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the notability in miniature wargaming is fairly self-evident from what is given in the article, although for an example of a third party media coverage the Irish Radio station 2fm (in June 2003) comes to mind.Also, some moderators have been mentioned by name in rule-books (eg. A Shadow in the East). --[[User:Grimhelm|Grimhelm] 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How do do you suppose being mentioned in a radio show could be verifiable, unless a transcript or a summary is published? Did the show talk about the whole "community" or individual forums? Should people use a time machine to hear what was actually said? Wikipedia's notability guidelines have a strict requirement for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and it's not satisfied, so your objections are irrelevant. You are only asserting that the subject is notable, but aren't providing any adequate proof. As far as I can see, the article should be deleted as non-notable, because it has no relevance outside of the community itself. Reinistalk 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why it's not cited in the article, but I'm just mentioning it as an example that wouldn't be evident from the article's sources. But I still maintain the relevance of the community on (real world) gaming clubs, Hobby centres, independent stockists, production of miniatures, official rule-books; and of course the more specialised games that receive sole support from online articles and resources; all of which cites sources in the article. (emphasis added following reply on 26 Sep)
 * On a side note, I also think this AfD should be treated as much as a gaming AfD as an internet one.  --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't need a time machine. That's why we have citations for tv episodes, radio shows, movies and not just for online sources. Remember, just because you haven't seen/heard it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You say I don't need a time machine, but how exactly can this source be used for verification? How does one check it, by asking an anonymous editor on Wikipedia? Reinistalk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, all you're maintaining is your unsupported opinion. Reinistalk 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Grim has said more than that. However, you seem to have a deletion agenda in mind, as evidenced by your adding the word "unsupported" to your previous reply. I can see that no matter what anyone says, you'll just try to blindly ignore/discount their arguments. No use arguing, so I'll just let the closing admin have his final say. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are trying to evade the requirement for reliable and independent sources, and I'm just commenting on that. Please bring the sources if they exist, or let this article be deleted, because it does not belong on Wikipedia. Reinistalk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The online communities, especially the ones for the Specialist Games are the ones that keep the games going, or indeed, write the rules (latest Blood Bowl rulebook being a case in point. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is just an unsourced assertion. Reinistalk 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources: big thanks to Tom Anders who has given up countless hours organising this project. Equally, we must thank to all the playtesters who have honed this version of Blood Bowl over the last two years of vault activitiy.
 * That's just for Blood Bowl - the other sections of both the SG games website, and the sub-forums have similar posts, and a look through the various users on the sub-forums (particularly Epic and BFG) will provide a list of the "Army Champions" (i.e. army list authors) for said games. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an independent source, and, being not even trivial coverage and saying nothing about the community, does not support the notability of the subject anyway. Reinistalk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources are appropriate to the claims made, per WP:V. Sources from the official GW website are not "questionable sources", as they have neither "a poor reputation for fact-checking" or "no editorial oversight". Primary sources are also permitted by policy where they do not present any controversial or non-neutral claims. It should also be noted that White Dwarf is a reliable source (as has been explained above); and it is also a third party source wherever "Wider Community" is involved. --Grimhelm 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:29, 1 October 2007 (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.