Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House lucius


 * 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 nomination was delete. Mango juice talk 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

House lucius
One of the more creative hoaxes. A "non-profit vampire organization". Probably too creative for CSD Travelbird


 * check discussions page too*
 * Comment Which discussion page ? Travelbird 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This one, the discussion page for this AfD. Fan-1967 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable web forum. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:47Z 
 * Delete. nn per WP:WEB. Mildly amusing, but not very. Fan-1967 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Unless they are blood fetishists, in which case, we need proof of notability. Ace of Sevens 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has been edited. It no longer claims the members are vampires.  It's not clear if they're role-playing as vampires or they just believe in vampires or what.  Still makes no assertion of notability, so my vote is unchanged. Ace of Sevens 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't really care if these guys believe in vampires or just like to suck a little blood or pretend on the internet or what, I see nothing that makes them any different from any other bunch of vampire-obsessed people on the internet. I was kinda hoping that we might get to see the obligatory death threats from Master Darkchylde von Hemoglobin, but with 49 posts on their forums and 11 registered members, I guess they just don't have the manpower to reach that level of outrage, even if all of us foolish mortals refuse to accept the superiority of the children of the night... Bummer. -- Captain Disdain 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A Comment: Since when an article on wiki is meant for deletion due to personal subjective views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaOne (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 July 2006
 * Comment The number of registered users/posts in your forum is not a personal subjective view and pretty much disqualifies you from notability. Ace of Sevens 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: The forum is not the subject of that page. Over 700 people have stopped by, although not registered on the forum and over 11000 hits, as seen in the statistics. Does that not count, when trying to figure out the notability of something? And please don't refer to 'House Lucius' as "mine". I am not here as an official representant of 'House Lucius', therefore I urge you to refrain from such comments. (Sorry if it's a little harsh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaOne (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 July 2006
 * Well, first of all, we delete things all the time because of personal subjective views, or rather, a consensus of personal subjective views. On Wikipedia, consensus tends to be king. However, to make things a little easier, we do have various policies and guidelines to direct those views. One of those guidelines is called Notability (web). House Lucius does not meet those guidelines -- it doesn't even come anywhere close to meeting them. Secondly, no offense intended, but I think you may need to get a little perspective here, because "over 700 people have stopped by" and "over 11 000 hits" since August, 2005 is, uh, pretty much nothing. (And incidentally, I have to say that it strikes me as more than a little dishonest that the site uses the phrase to describe itself on the forums. Having 700 people visit the site in one year (that's, what, less than two visitors a day...?) is not at all the same thing as having 700 members.) This is not an attack against the site, it's just that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and House Lucius is a very small website. Very small websites are very rarely suitable topics for encyclopedia articles. Oh, and when participating in discussions like this, please sign your comments, by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment. -- Captain Disdain 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't knew how to do that. Yes, I agree that the site notability might be a little low, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't inexistent. And I beg to disagree, if 'House Lucius' is not interested in forums there is nothing anyone can do about it. What I'm trying to say that not ones forum denotes overall activity of something, so you should not judge it by the activity on the forum. And about the personal views thingy, like: " don't really care if these guys believe in vampires or just like to suck a little blood or pretend on the internet or what, I see nothing that makes them any different from any other bunch of vampire-obsessed people on the internet." So deleting their article of wiki, because of this? I can tell the policy and guideline regarding this view. DeltaOne 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But I'm not judging it (only) by the activity on the forum, although I have to say that any site with a forum as devoid of life as that one is going to have a damn hard time convincing me that people actually, y'know, use it. But that's not the only criterion I'm using here; the user counter on the front page of the House Lucius clearly indicates that only a few people use it. But if that doesn't work for you, how about an Alexa ranking? At the time of this writing, that'd be 873,557. That's nothing to write home about. And yes, as I said, I don't really care if these guys believe in vampires etc. That's a personal opinion, absolutely, but that's not why I think the article should be deleted. You see, the people who frequent the site might believe in Santa Claus or be avid kite fliers or obsessively enjoy a rousing polka -- I don't care and it doesn't matter, because the site does not stand out. It's not notable. It's not encyclopedic material. If you want to believe that I just look down on the poor vampire enthusiasts and unfairly want to delete the article because of that, I can't stop you from doing so, but the bottom line is that the site doesn't even remotely meet WP:WEB. This is not persecution, and it's nothing personal. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to let everyone create an article about whatever they like. Very few sites merit Wikipedia articles, and articles about much larger and much more popular sites than House Lucius get rejected all the time. -- Captain Disdain 13:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to look like a bugger. I see what you mean, and thanks for the Alexa link, didn't knew the existance of such site. If the real purpose of Wikipedia is, as you say, not to let everyone create an article about whatever they like, as few merit to be featured on Wikipedia as it's an encyclopedia of very important things, then I fear that I have made a bad choice submitting it in the first place. Thanks for sharing your views, my respect for wikipedia has fallen tremendously.(sp?) DeltaOne
 * Well, have it your way. For me, that's the kind of a thing that increases my respect for Wikipedia, because if we weren't discriminate about what kind of topics we have articles on, we could have articles on, say, your cat (if you have one) or your lack of cats (if you don't happen to have any). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true, that doesn't mean an article should be written about it. -- Captain Disdain 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But, until an administrator checks this article, I will try to sum the reasons why it was meant for deletion.
 * Hoax (I yet haven't received any info regarding this)
 * Not-Notable-Forum (at that time there was a link to the forum, link removed. Also, there has been a discussion about the fact that, as few people are on their forum, their website is not notable, thing that I completely disagree with)
 * Not-Notable-Organization (poor wording in the article, it has been edited to better reflect the issue)
 * Not-Notable-Website. This one was controversial to one point, when Captain Disdain explained that from an Alexa Ranking, it's not notable, and I have been also explained that wikipedia, as a respected online encyclopedia shall not have articles on things that are not very notable. I also, respectfully, disagree with this.

Feel free to comment here rather than sub-commenting the above topic if there are any other reasons for deletion.DeltaOne
 * I suggest you read the articles at What Wikipedia is not and Five pillars and think about how they relate to your article here. You can argue your case here, but honestly, I think you're wasting your time. This is not some kind of a weird legal process or a bureaucracy where you can find a loophole or interpret the rules in your favor. The bottom line is, it's exceedingly unlikely that this article will remain on Wikipedia -- unless, of course, you can turn it into a properly sourced and verifiable article that also establishes why this website, out of, what, millions of other websites, is significant and notable enough to deserve an article, even though it's not widely used, it only gets a few relevant Google hits ("House Lucius" gets about 270 Google hits, but only a few of them are actually about the site). I mean, what do you want me to say? It's not a popular site. I don't mean any offense here, but allow me to be frank: it's not widely used. It's not widely discussed. It's not widely linked to. Seriously, my blog -- which is not the subject of a Wikipedia article and definitely shouldn't be one, either -- has a considerably larger Internet presence than House Lucius. So I don't think you can get an article out of this one, but if you could, I'm sure we'd all willing to change our votes in this matter. That happens in AfD processes all the time. Personally, though, I think you'd be better off learning from this experience. I don't mean to be a dick here, but c'mon, face the facts. The fact that your site is not widely recognized doesn't mean it's a bad site (any more than my blog is a bad blog). This is not about quality or a judgement call about your site's content. It's a simple matter of us having certain guidelines and your site not meeting them. -- Captain Disdain 20:47, 6 July 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.