Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowclan (3rd 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:36Z 

Shadowclan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable except in the small communities with which they interact. A "consensus" by members of the guild shouldn't outweigh the fact that they fail nearly every aspect of Notability (web). Their references seem to be a mixture of self links, a "screenshot of the week" style site, a gaming site (Ultima Online) with 150 such articles about the same types of events with different groups, an "interview" by a member of the group with their leader (The Only-War link) and an article on a minor WoW fansite. A quick google search brings up 534 for "shadowclan guild" (no quotes), 1440 for "shadowclan warcraft" (no quotes) and 1380 for "shadowclan ultima online" (no quotes). If we are going to allow a group with no mainstream coverage, what's the point of having notability guidelines at all? Chad Hennings 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved this current AfD to a separate page; the nominator created this one on the page of the first nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is getting a little old. As copied from another discussion, this group has:
 * - been interviewed for a commercially-published book (a "...for Dummies" book, no less).
 * - been written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot.
 * Arguably, this group isn't under the auspices of WP:WEB, but it meets it anyway: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Now brace for impact of a deluge of single purpose accounts from Shadowclan itself and groups that don't like Shadowclan. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User Simões appears to be a sockpuppet. Waargboom 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Simões is a sockpuppet? He or she has a substantial and varied editing history.  Please don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with evidence.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's spotted me in public with socks on my hands. If that's his allegation, then I ain't confessin' nothin' 'til I see photographic evidence! ;) Simões ( talk/contribs ) 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added Simões's two points into the article. If there are any more non-trivial sources that assert notability, please add them so these nominations are less likely to go on. I am neutral. Pomte 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the supporters that want to keep this article are members of the online guild and it's Not notable except in the small communities.Mikemiddleton 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — Mikemiddleton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.239.22 (talk • contribs) — 75.197.239.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete not notable except to the people within that guild. RedKlonoa 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, reliable, third party sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two sources have already been given. Are you inclined to reject either of them? Simões ( talk/contribs ) 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To those who haven't read the article itself or the past discussions pertaining to it, I'd like to point out the following:
 * - This article has been up for deletion twice before - for the same not-notable "argument". The result from both discussions was to keep.
 * Discussion One -
 * Discussion Two -
 * - This article has at least four, what one might consider strong, references from third party sources.
 * Reference One: Raph Koster Article -
 * Reference Two: Ultima Online Article -
 * Reference Three: MMOG for Dummies Book -
 * Reference Four: Dark Age of Camelot Races Article -
 * - Shadowclan is also mentioned, as though the reader will know exactly who they are, in well-known game development discussion sites, gaming fansites, gaming forums and gaming magazines such as Terra Nova and Massive Magazine.
 * - I wrote the bulk of the article. Over the past few months, I have edited and rewrote the bulk of the article. I am a former Shadowclan member and current fan. Yuut 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:COI? It's fascinating. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. Just as everyone monitoring this discussion should. Thank you for the sarcastic response.Yuut 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have issue numbers for the two magazines and the nature of the Shadowclan references? If so, it would probably help fence sitters lean more to one side. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - FWIW my understanding of WP:N is that multiple and reliable sources are required. No argument with Dummies reference. However, I gather from WP:RS that blogs are only reliable if written by journalists or acdemics and Raph Koster is neither. Also, I don't think Ultima Online or Dark Age of Camelot are reliable publishers. The terranova reference is another blog and I couldn't find the article when I searched Massive Magazine. Addhoc 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot are games, not publishers. The publisher of both games (and therefore their documentation) is Electronic Arts. I'd consider them a reliable source, especially for materials for their own products. No? Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Yuut. Sources provide both notability and... sources. --Falcorian (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2007 (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.