Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5


 * 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The result was   AfD withdrawn Shii (tock) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lurker&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As far as I can tell this is a fansite that, according to another uncredentialed fansite, was once mentioned by the object of the fandom on USENET twelve years ago. Mysterious "further reading" articles suggest that this website might be used by fans; there is no claim in this article that it is useful for non-fans, nor any sort of information that is relevant to non-fans. Shii (tock) 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Google searches suggest a week keep in my view: SciFi Network review, linked right below the Wikipedia entry on Google Directories, used as a source in the Wikipedia article, plus has some apparent reliable sources in the article here. Probably meets criteria one of Notability_(web) is met.  Points listed under the legacy also suggest notability in my mind, but they're unsourced. Nominator, however, has some valid concerns.  Fraud  talk to me  02:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Babylon 5 fans will find this website very useful; maybe we could link it at the bottom of the Babylon 5 article, just like how we link fallacyfiles.org at the bottom of the Fallacy article. For it to merit its own article, though, it needs more general references than the B5 pages on SciFi.com and DMOZ. Shii (tock) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has them. This subject is covered in books.  It's glaringly apparent from your nomination that you haven't looked at even one of the books cited, because what you claim they say is nowhere near what the books actually say.  One of them takes several pages to analyze this specific web site, comparing it against and constrasting it with the show's official web site.  Books are not "mysterious".  They are there for you to read.  You even have the page numbers to start reading at.  Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a general guide, well-established major fansites for really major fan communities are likely to be notable. The sources may be unorthodox, but that's the nature of the subject. DGG (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with User:DGG in that well-established fansites for large fanbases can be notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability bar for websites. 23skidoo (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is the subject of significant third-party coverage and meets the notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. --Masamage ♫ 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per books added by Uncle G before the AfD was initiated. Uncle G is understandably irked here. He removed the prod (added by the nom) and added the book references. After that, the nominator started this AfD. I'm not going to use any epithets here, you can judge for yourselves. VG &#x260E; 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and UncleG. The Lurker's Guide easily meets notability standards. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as a likely WP:POINT nomination. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (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.