Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Witch Project (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. --Ezeu 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rare Witch Project
After months, still only one independent source of proof of notability. Multiple sources are needed. Many claims are not backed up. The title gets only 87 unique hits when you filter out the official site and wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drat (talk • contribs).
 * Delete - Seems spamish. Not that notable either, just a fan site.  How many people, games places have fan sites?  Def not for wikipedia.  Chris Kreider 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong. I respect what these guys have done, their achievements in finding such stuff. But there needs to be more reliable, third party, etc. etc. etc. coverage to justify their presence here.--Drat (Talk) 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable spam. tgies 08:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing Vote. Although this article needs to have the crap cleaned out of it for sure. DietLimeCola 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The site's discoveries were mentioned in numerous video game magazines (Nintendo Power, etc). Much more notable than most fansite cruft. --- RockMFR 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He's right actually, although the Rare Witch Project wasnt credited for finding the codes, their discoveries were mentioned. Chagning my vote back to strong keep.  Heres the list of the more popular codes they found. .  Heres the full list of codes found in the game. .  The only ones they didnt find were as follows:


 * CHEATGIVETHEBEARLOTSOFAIR Infinite Air


 * CHEATBANJOBEGSFORPLENTYOFEGGS Infinite Eggs


 * CHEATAGOLDENGLOWTOPROTECTBANJO Infinite Gold Feathers


 * CHEATLOTSOFGOESWITHMANYBANJOS Infinite Lives


 * CHEATNOWYOUCANFLYHIGHINTHESKY Infinite Red Feathers


 * BRLGOEULDFEAEGTHGERS 200 eggs


 * CHEATANENERGYBARTOGETYOUFAR 8 Immediate Honeycombs


 * CHEATDONTBEADUMBOGOSEEMUMBO 99 Mumbo Tokens


 * BIGBOTTLESBONUS A combination of the other bottles


 * BOTTLESBONUSTWO Big arms & legs


 * BOTTLESBONUSONE Big Head


 * BOTTLESBONUSFIVE Big heads & feet


 * NOBONUS Cancels effects of codes.


 * BOTTLESBONUSFOUR Kazooie has big head & wings


 * BOTTLESBONUSTHREE Small head & Tall body


 * WISHYWASHYBANJO Turns Banjo into Washer


 * BLUEEGGS Maximum number of eggs is 200


 * REDFEATHERS Have a maximum of 100 red feathers


 * GOLDFEATHERS Maximum 20 Golden Feathers

All the rest listed on that page were found by The Rare Witch Project. DietLimeCola 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible delete. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:ORG. "Discovering" cheat codes for a single game does not, by any means, make a website notable. Also, technically the game creators were the first to "discover" the cheat codes, as they were the ones who put them in the game.-- TBC Φ  talk?  18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge any relevant info into the Stop N Swop article. The rest isn't that notable. DanPMK 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would actually be a good idea to merge this with Stop 'N' Swop, we dont need two pages about the same thing. DietLimeCola 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (or Merge relevant info) seems best, as long as main article refers to and links to the site. The site itself is not notable enough for encyclopedic attention, even if it is a reference source for other articles. Even if the site covered all things Rare, it might not be enough, but one game? Durty Willy 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete The site is not notable and the site's server host suspened the account. Also this article has been recreated many times by vandals from that site, In my opinion this article should be Delete Protected --Stylesr 20:27, 6 November 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.