Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realm of Tar Valon


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Realm of Tar Valon
A scant few 200-member internet forums can meet the notability guidelines of WP:WEB. This is not, however, an example of one that does. -- Scientizzle 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.UberCryxic 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. --Mysmartmouth 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fills the definition of web forum vanity. And look! It even lists individual forum members! J I P  | Talk 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity, NN and having very little hope of passing WP:WEB. What I don't understand, for the life of me, is the article mentioning that being a 'small' group helps to build bonds within the group, then it gets stuck on the Wikipedia as an advert. No disrespect to the contributors who've built it, but that isn't what WP is about. QuagmireDog 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I've struck through this vote and voted again below. QuagmireDog 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. ~ Brother William 11:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete I have read through the critical issues to do with this and I am curious, if "A scant few 200-member internet forums can meet the notability guidelines of WP:WEB" then why doesn't this one? For the record, yes I belong to the site, no I did not write the article, no I did not reccomend the article be written nor sanction anyone from my site to write it. However, the phenomena that is the online Community which has sprung up around such notables as the Wheel of Time and Harry Potter for instance, should be acknolwedged as in existence, I thought that was what wiki was all about? I understand we can't use you to advertise our site, and that that would be wrong.  But where does the line between an advertisement end and fulfilling wiki's purpose of broad knowledge begin?SerenityMaconar 11:50, 30 September 2006
 * It doesn't meet WP:WEB because there are no examples of outside press about the site listed. WP:V is also a useful reference here. The Wikipedia is a tertiary source, taking information from secondary sources. Anything listed as an article on WP should have been written about by a non-trivial organization or the press. What's being asked is "who has written about this site?", since it is limited to 200 users, that's a fair question. Some small forums may have received press, for instance a particular magazine or paper found them interesting, or perhaps one of the forum users was of note which sparked some interest. If you (or indeed anyone else) has examples of the website receiving this kind of coverage, please supply them (as the lack of this is what has brought the article here to AFD). The Wikipedia is all about as much information being provided as possible in a balanced, neutral point-of-view and by showing the subject's 'notability'. Without asking for evidence of the subject receiving some relevant press, the WP would be massively bloated in a very short time. I haven't had a chance to have a proper look for some press for this site, yet, or a wheel-of-time wiki where this info could go, but I thought it better to at least try and answer your query. QuagmireDog 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a Wheel of Time Wiki right here, who may be able to host this information, for a start. Google searching "Realm of Tar Valon" comes up with only 22 unique hits, none of which seem to be a secondary source that could be used to apply notability. The site has no Alexa rank, three sites link into the RoTV site - two are message board posts and one is a directory of WoT links. Basically, if WP was to host every website of this kind it would end up looking like a mirror for the whole interweb. The site and the WP article on it both look nicely written and I'm sure will be of interest to WoT fans, but we're looking for articles which could interest readers with no prior knowledge of the subject - an article about a small message board doesn't say much apart from that this site exists. I'm changing my vote because of the Wiki. I hope my explanation for my own thinking is of some help Serenity. QuagmireDog 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to then deletify. Site displays no signs of passing WP:WEB, but the article could well be useful at this Wiki. QuagmireDog 22:13, 1 October 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.