Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rare Witch Project


 * 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. -Doc ask?  12:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rare Witch Project
A gaming website with alexa rank of 4,365,581. Fails WP:WEB, was proded and removed by the author.
 * Delete Renata 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the media coverage in a gaming magazine (as shown in article) doesn't meet the criteria for WP:WEB, either. O bli (Talk) 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the WP:WEB, and nowhere do I see a website needs to be run through Alexa, nor do I see how this article doesn't follow the criteria. Can you please explain? This is not a website advertisement. It's a factual resource for information pertaining to the history of a few games and how this website uncovered secrets about them. I would love to know why this article can't stay up, and nobody has taken the time to properly explain why this article supposedly fails to meet the WP:WEB. Gordraf
 * Also, an administrator -- User:FCYTravis -- has edited the page if you look at the history. If an administrator of Wikipedia has no problems with the article, why do you guys? Gordraf
 * See Alexa test for more details on that. All FCYTravis did was removing a redundant quote, though. No administrator can be on a constant deletion patrol, administrators do editing, too. O bli (Talk) 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, yes. I see. Alexa can have incredibly biased results, "Alexa rankings do not reflect whether any source material for constructing an encyclopaedia article actually exists. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it." I see what you mean. A poorly ranked website with a lot of notable history and information certainly isn't worth any value. I'm sure you've read our article so far and have obviously come to that conclusion. Even considering we're far from completing the article, you've jumped to the conclusion that it's unworthy. Very professional and cooperative. I thank you. Gordraf
 * Note that the alexa ranking is just a supporting argument in addition to the argument that the article does not meet WP:WEB, which is alone criteria for deletion. O bli (Talk) 21:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair game. I don't want to fight here, I just want to document the accomplishments of the two people who run the website. Frankly, I'm tired. So, I'm just going to ask... is there anything that we can do to improve this article and make it work? I'm willing to cooperate on any level... and if there's nothing that can be done, then okay. You have my blessing to just wipe this whole thing. I've tried my hardest, and so have a few others, to give the article a neutral, fair point of view without making it look like an advertisement or what-have-you. We're not looking for visitors... we get enough of those every week on the forums. Hmm... if not an entire article, what about merging what we have written up with their respective games? And could we have forwarding links in this article to these games and their appropriate subsections? Would that work? So at the very least, if someone types in "The Rare Witch Project", they can still find things out in the linked game articles. Is that resonable? :) Gordraf
 * I'm just follwing the guidelines, I've no idea about the community surrounding RareWare, but I guess you could throw something in at Rareware, under a "Fanbase" subheader, I think it would do much better there. O bli (Talk) 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not bad. Would it be a good idea to discuss it first on the Rareware page? I wouldn't want to just stick things in and start another dispute. I don't know... maybe we should just can this article and forget about it. --Gordraf 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: not to familiar with alexa rating but you're trying to say is that this ain't notable right? Humm... interesting. Are there other sources of information about this. If so I think we should keep? --CyclePat 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete cruft. Guy 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we get the point. Delete, enough said. Just do it already. There's no need for more opinions. Stop prolonging this. --Gordraf 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, fails WP:WEB and this article was deleted (Articles_for_deletion/Rare_witch_project) a couple months ago. Dbchip 09:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the site for anything related to the game company Rareware. This site is the only site that the game company has ever mentioned on their website. If the Rare Witch Project doesn't qualify for a wikipedia page then wikipedia isn't worth the space it takes up. --Dbzfan 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From the article: "the site is famous within the Rareware community..." Okay, well, I do more gaming offline than online, but I've never heard of Rareware nor these games and mod tools.  Neither has the most active online gamer and modder who I know.  So I have to judge by the methods I have available, such as Alexa and Google.  Neither can be used to deny notability, but in this subject matter, they're most likely to show notability if it exists.  For Roman governors of Egypt in the second century, they're less meaningful search methods, but this is a website about online gaming.  For The Rare Witch Project, they don't show enough to get my "keep" vote.  Game-related fansites are generally not nearly as notable as their small community of fans would like to think.  Delete per WP:WEB.  Barno 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Helooo? What, does it take five monkeys to screw in a lightbulb or something? I wrote the article and even I'm saying delete. How many more opinions does this need? Cripes... --Gordraf 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes five days. The vote from the article author counts as much as any other vote.  See Deletion_policy for more information to understand the process that is giving your article (and others) a fair review. Dbchip 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete - it's a bad site with broken links and vulgar content -stylesr
 * I don't see any vulgar content on the site. I am missing something? - dave


 * 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.