Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal's Realm of RuneScape


 * 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 Delete, after discounting unregistered and new users. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sal's Realm of RuneScape


Current tally of votes:
 * Keep 3,but only 1 if we do not count people who's only edits are to this page.
 * Delete 5

Delete If you search, or know about it, you'll know fansites like this on RuneScape have always been deleted by afd. This is yet another fansite which doesn't deserve anything more than a link at the bottom of the page. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 11,720 -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???   ???   ??? 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I nuts, or is that actually a fairly decent Alexa ranking? Kuru   talk  03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was going to include more information, like a history of the site, how it started and other information that may be interesting for the site's users to read. It's a fairly popular site and many people use it, and I don't think the Alexa rank alone should determine whether to keep it or not. —This unsigned comment was added by The Rickster (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Above user's only edit is to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As well as what The Rickster stated, this article is completely factual. Any parts of the article that may be considered as advertising could be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia's neutral stance. It should not be seen as any sort of promotion for the site, but merely an accurate representation of pertinent information. Dissentor 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont Delete it? Im not really bothered actually.. Why am I here? O_O I must be off now —This unsigned comment was added by 60.231.251.71 (talk • contribs).
 * This user's only two edits are to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

J.J.Sagnella 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some Past Examples of articles like this being deleted wither being made into redirect pages or deleted.:
 * Articles for deletion/Runescape Xplorer
 * Articles for deletion/Evilswitch
 * Articles for deletion/Runecrypt
 * Articles for deletion/Runescape Community
 * Land of runescape
 * Articles for deletion/RuneHQ


 * Sagnella, I don't see why you're so interested in seeing that this article gets deleted. Any ulterior motives? Well, I don't think that this article is the same as the previous ones on RuneScape Community and RHQ. RSC and RHQ's articles were stubs that barely had any content in them besides unshameful promotion of their respective websites. This article contains factual information that is potentially useful to many people. If you feel that it's written simply to promote the site, I am sorry to have to say that it is of my opinion that you are mistaken. As proof of that, any links, biased opinions, or whatnot may be cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's policies. Dissentor 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put it this way. Sal's Realm is by no means the best RuneScape fansite. Even if it was to be kept, articles about tip.it, runehq, zybez, runevillage and possibly others would have to be created to mkae it equal. That would be a big waste of Wikipedia space. J.J.Sagnella 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, define how you rate a fansite as the best or not. What are you using to judge how good or bad a fansite is? I am not saying that Sal's Realm is the best fansite; however, it seems that you came to the conclusion that Sal's Realm is not the best fansite without any supporting information. If other fansites would have to have their own articles to make it equal, by all means, let them be written, as long as they're not partisan pieces of nothing but how great they are and how much other fansites are worse than their's. And as for that being a waste of Wikipedia space, I'm fairly sure you're not paying monthly server costs or anything of that sort. If you think that this article is a waste of space, please do say so in a more succinct manner and I'll spend some time finding articles that have been allowed that are even more useless than this one.
 * This brings me nicely on to the key reason as to why this should get deleted. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, as a kind suggestion, you should probably do a spell check on your comment before you hit "Save Page". The typos made it more difficult to comprehend what you were trying to say.

Dissentor 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I rush. Sorry if it is hard to read. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that traffic and guides are what make a fansite better or worse. I believe that it is the community that truly defines the fansite and what it's about. As for RuneHQ's article getting deleted, if I was around for the discussion, I would've most definitely supported its existance. If it is a well-written article, not biased, and completely factual, then I believe that it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to keep it. That's why the deletionist mantra doesn't make any sense to me. Wikipedia wants to grow, then why throw out articles that aren't tabloids in nature, serve a purpose, are of interest to some, and are not harmful/hatred in nature?
 * Wikipedia wants to grow. But we don't want to have an article on absoloutely anything. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what makes it and what doesn't. J.J.Sagnella 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you take a closer look, it is not "the moderators", it is "a moderator". On the lowest rung of the ladder, if I may add. The site administrator is well aware of this article and supports its creation and commented in support of its existance as the Rickster, thereby rendering that argument of your's moot.

Dissentor 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Hammer Raccoon 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete completely non notable site. Pegasus1138 Talk 03:27, 6 April 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.