Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrypt


 * 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 debate was Goodbye Hedley 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Runecrypt
This seems to just be an advertisement, and I don't think this article is notable to begin with. Croat Canuck 15:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not an advertisment. This site has a history that people who visit are constantly curious about.  There will be things added to it in the future.  You have no right to delete it.  It is not an add.  If you don't like it, don't look at it! -Gunny, Runecrypt User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.30.116 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 15:51:38 UTC
 * It is not an add, did you even read the whole thing? It has infomation about Runecrypt, its not spam along the lines of: "omfg!!!!! u must join our site!!!1111one!!!!1" -Plant Dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.133.16 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 15:53:16 UTC
 * How is it an advertisement there is much history in runescape that comes from runecrypt,it is a big fansite and there are links and pages to fansites for homestar runner,star wars, world of warcraft, ect. ect. -I am me and only me,runecrypt memeber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.221.40 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-29 16:18:23 UTC


 * Comment I'm not deleting it, I'm putting it up for deletion, there is a difference. Wikipedians will vote whether it should stay or go, its not my decision. Croat Canuck 16:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this link even fails to get a mention on the external links page of the Article it is about. Advertisment or not, it's not needed and should get deleted. J.J.Sagnella 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems like a borderline notable website, though the article does need a more encyclopedic tone.   BTW, Runecrypt fanatics, please consider at least glancing at Talk pages before posting a comment here.  Dbtfz <small16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember that on The actual Runescape page, it was recently decided to delete this link, and the ones kept don't have their own website, so they? J.J.Sagnella 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, article about a game fansite with an alexa rank of over 200,000. Not one of the most visited runescape sites, no claims of notability in the article. - Bobet 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable by its own admission ("over one hundred members regularly visiting the site").--MayerG 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks ok to me, it's well written and informative. Who cares if it's not one of the most visited sites for Runescape? You definitely give a very bad impression when you admit stuff such as the "Liger" article and that stuff. That article is not an advertisement and it's informative enough. These people tell what it is, it's purpose and some background information on it. It should stay I think. --Cotusa 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point though is if Runevillage's wikipedia article recently got deleted, and it has more traffic than this, why keep it? J.J.Sagnella 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article cites no sources. Searching for sources, all that I find are a multitude of submissions to web directories.  There is no secondary source material upon which this article is based.  It appears to be original research, a description of the web site from firsthand knowledge that is being first published in Wikipedia.  There is no secondary source material from which to construct a verifiable encyclopaedia article that would be more than a web directory entry.  Wikipedia is not a web directory.   The WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied.  Delete. Uncle G 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if objectionable phrases such as "By the way are you in a 'special class'?" are an indication of the intelligence of this sites users. Jcuk 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. --Thunk 19:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How can you even think of deleting it? It has great information, and tells all about the fansite. Even with background info. Zaico - Active Runecrypt member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.182.65 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. Wisco 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Uncle G. No indication of meeting WP:WEB, no outside sources and presence of people probably brought in by notice on Runecrypt who have not previously contributed to Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ". Capitalistroadster 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting WP:WEB per Uncle G. Turnstep 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did check it out after the rewrite, and while it is much improved, it still fails WP:WEB. Turnstep 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. You guys from Runecrypt are in Wikipedia territory. That means that you follow our rules, including WP:CIV. All of that flaming you guys posted just makes me want to delete it even more. SYCTHOS talk  21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete web cruft, pure and simple. --kingboyk 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If the half-witted article wasn't bareboned enough, the flaming spam of its authors certainly is. Webcruft of no worth here doktorb | words 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, Runecrypt users. I wish your site much success in the future, but currently, it does not seem to belong in Wikipedia.  --Joel7687 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am terribly sorry about the actions of my fellow crypters. I'm trying to edit the article now and I've eliminated whole sections of the article. I have started citing sources and following wikipedia guidelines. I can clearly see where you would think this was an ad, so I've completely changed the tone of the article. I don't know if I can change the article to conform to Wikipedia standards; it's written from as neutral a perspective as I can get, and research is backed by some sources, though it is not possible to verify some bits of material. Kevin; Original Writer
 * Keep Delete: There have been many improvements to the article on 30 January. These deal with many of the criticisms above. I would have voted to delete the original version (and the flaming above doesn't help its cause), but I think the current version is not a bad article. I don't feel qualified to judge about the notability of the subject matter, but that is often subjective anyway. If you voted before 30 January, you may want to reconsider your vote. -- Avenue 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind, having looked into the notability aspect more. Of the 5 fansites listed at the end of the RuneScape article, four of them have much larger membership than this one, and none seem to have articles on Wikipedia. So this one doesn't seem notable enough to keep. -- Avenue 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The rewrite is great, but doesn't address the notability problem. I would like to delete the idiots above though. —rodii 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about the notability factor...the site is what it is I suppose. -Once Again, the Original Writer
 * Delete. The rewrite was a good effort, but it's still a non-notable fan site.-gadfium 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Still delete per Gadfium. - squibix  (talk)  14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Although I hate resorting to it, the Alexa rank is 241,596. Discussion is plagued by meatpuppets. Stifle 16:55, 31 January 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.