Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilum guild


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nihilum guild

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WoW/gaming guild. The guild may be notable within the community, but not in any encyclopedic way. Page consists largely of external links and borders on spam. The creating editor and only contributor is a COI (the username is Awakenihilum). &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only real claim of notability for this clan is the claim to be the "world's #1 PvE clan", and that is sourced to a forum, which is not a WP:RS. Otherwise not notable.  Lankiveil (complaints 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't see how it's not relevant since we've accomplished so much and made a big name of ourselves. I considered to add a link to our community site in the article World of Warcraft, but I'm unable to do so for 4 more days. Perhaps delete this article (if you feel it's such a must!) and add a link to us there instead.

↑ Quote from http://wow-europe.com/: "...you will be able to witness a World of Warcraft Arena exhibition game between France's best arena team, Millenium, and the best PvE guild worldwide, Nihilum, on Friday 6 July at 14:00 on the main stage. Awakenihilum —Preceding comment was added at 06:33, January 20, 2008
 * Delete No reliable sources (wikis and messageboards are not reliable sources). Also, adding your link to the main WOW page would be spam and be deleted.  TJ   Spyke   06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

www.wow-europe.com is the official European WoW website. That's as good as a source could get. Awakenihilum —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, January 20, 2008
 * Speedy delete. Non-notable group. Attempt to circumvent the protection on Nihilum which has been deleted multiple times. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: I PLAY World of Warcraft and this stuff has no place here. There are THOUSANDS of websites more appropriate for this and all the fans know where to find them. MiracleMat (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see where you guys are coming from. The article covers a lot of interesting information. If you feel some links are bad, you can edit them and fix it. Speedy delete and circumvent a protection? No... that's not what I'm doing here. I haven't ever posted about Nihilum here before, and I highly doubt that is what the /Nihilum article use to contain; info about our guild. Awakenihilum —Preceding comment was added at 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that the previous article /Nihilum did in fact contain information about our guild. This is something I never authorized and it disappoints me that someone posted it. Since it's been deleted previously I assume this kind of article goes against wikipedia's rules and as I said per email to RHaworth, feel free to delete the article. I do have one request to make though. Could you post a link to our site in the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_warcraft -- Under "Information for players" Since we provide WoW players with detailed guides, etc. It would be appreciated. Thanks! Awakenihilum (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, but an article on your guild would not require your permission. If your group was notable enough to have an article, it would have an article even if you didn't want it to exist (there are several people who are against Wikipedia but have an article because of their notability).  TJ   Spyke   09:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that Nihilum is currently protected from being edited. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 08:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete gameclan, the end. JuJube (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: I agree with JuJube and MiracleMat. There was absolutely no reason to post this on Wikipedia. Period. / Mats Halldin (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly, and not necessarily with prejudice. As a WoW player and occasional raider, I've heard of them.  But my understanding is that game guilds need true notoriety outside of the game and its community to be noteworthy enough to get an encyclopedia article.  Leeroy Jenkins made the grade; not sure that Nihilum has, yet.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Game guilds aren't notable unless they're covered in independent, reliable, secondary sources.  The official WoW page isn't independent, and the rest is sourced to webforums and YouTube.  As for adding a link to the main World of Warcraft page, if we added this guild, we'd have to add every guild.  The external links would be longer than the article itself. --Phirazo 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This definately needs to go. Unless this guild has independant sources (such as an article or other material outside of WoW community info) it does not support notability. Slavlin (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The editors above me, it seems, have read the article with their eyes closed. WoW-Europe.com, Bosskillers.com, WoWinsider: All very reliable sources. If the website of a multibillion-dollar company does not constitute relible, what does? The number one ranked guild on the word's most popular MMO is certainly notable, just as the top ranked team in Rugby, Soccer etc. are notable. It is sad that this article will be deleted simply because of Wikipedia editor's contempt for online games is causing them to blindly believe what other editors have said. ~ Carlin U T C @ 10:29, 25 January 2008 (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.