Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third 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 delete and if anyone wants to perform a merge into another article please contact an administrator to temporarily restore the page for you. While notability is a guideline, it is still very important as clarification of policy and, as someone quotes Jimbo as saying, to keep the standards and credibility of Wikipedia at a certain level. While there was some support to keep this page, the main arguments consisted of quoting Alexa rank and comparing this to a whole bunch of other Wikis that already have articles on Wikipedia. (And a few new users who undoubtably came here due to mention of this AfD on WoWWiki, please remember that this process is a discussion, not a vote). To sumarize what others have already said in response to these arguments: the Alexa test is highly unreliable, and the fact that there are other wikis here that should not be on Wikipedia is not a relavent argument to keep this one. If you are concerned about articles on Wikis that should not be here, you are free to discuss their deletion individually.--Konst.ableTalk 07:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WoWWiki
Self nomination Fails WP:NN. This is a fan website, and I do not see how it is notable, yet alone even worth mentioning on Wikipedia. It is only directly related to World of Warcraft, and all other Wikipedia articles that link to this do so in their External links sections. It arguably could be cited as a source (within context), however it clearly doesn't need its own article. Many MMORPGs have their own unofficial fan-driven wikis (PlaneShift has like three of them, and Anarchy Online has AOWiki); yet they do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Tuxide 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If I where you, I would actually do a little research before screaming WP:NN, as this is very much notable. Also, there are no rules that go against fan sites. If it is mentioned in the EL section of those articles, they can be safely removed and added to the "See also" section of said articles. This is in fact the biggest Warcraft related Wiki, and I would encourage you to find any other Warcraft Wiki which is as big as this one, so you can prove me wrong on this. Thank you. One last thing, I feel this is a bad faith nomination as you have done little to no research on the subject matter before you placed the AfD. Havok (T/C/c) 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...wtf? Tuxide 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I urge you to follow policy and Assume Good Faith rather than continue to make accusations of bad faith nominations because of fundamental philosophical differences on notability. --Kunzite 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussions, listed for convenience:
 * Articles for deletion/WoWWiki
 * Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (second nomination)


 * Delete - I have seen several nominations for articles like this recently. Not notable enough. Chris Kreider 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fans of the game already know about the WoW wiki and anybody doing research on the game can find what they need here. - b o b b y  18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How would whether or not WoW players know about the wiki affect its notability? Surely that would only count for the article rather than against it? I would dispute that wikipedia has everything that a reasearcher would need, but if it is to then link to WoWWiki to give a researcher the information missing from here, would it not be a reasonable to have an independant article showing them what the WoWWiki is like? Kirkburn 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason not to keep this article, given the prior decisions on Lostpedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, etc, though if we are going to delete it, maybe it should be added to the EL section of World of Warcraft? FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is already in the References section of World of Warcraft; in addition when I nominated it, the website was in the External links section of Warcraft II and Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. Tuxide 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the References section is too obscure for the site, I didn't even notice it. I'd prefer it be given an external link.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This site does not meet the guidelines of notability for web content. Like a similar article on an MMORPG wiki, this site deserves to be an external link on the article of the game it's about, at best. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel I should mention that the wiki is not just about World of Warcraft, but the entire Warcraft universe - which is an awful lot larger. It's also one of the most popular Warcraft-related websites in the world - the Alexa ranking is now around 4,000 and rising. I have to ask, why do we need a third nomination about this? Are we going to keep having them until it's deleted and there's no way back? Please don't bite my head off for mentioning this, but using the medium of a google search WoWWiki gets 291,000 results for me (compared to 318,000 for Wookieepedia), which seems an awful for lot for something non-notable -- Kirkburn 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please clarify this: the Alexa ranking is now around 4,000 and rising.  I assume you do realize that the number getting bigger is worse.  The reason this was nominated for a third time is that this non-notable, being an unofficial fan site.  I didn't see my argument brought up in the previous two nominations.  Tuxide 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly, see . Several days recently the wiki has reached a rank of around 2,500 (the very, very recent dip is due a small amount of downtime). Thank you for mentioning my semantics rather than concentrating on the point, btw. And yes your argument was brought up before. Kirkburn 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait a moment - are you saying you didn't actually check to see whether the site was popular (most surely an indication of notability) before nominating it on the basis of non-notability? Since when is the fact that it is "unofficial fan site" qualify it for non-notability? Does something have to be officially sanctioned to be notable? Does the fact it's not a Blizzard-run site count against it? Please explain your reasoning further. Kirkburn 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What the h3ll does self nomination mean? "Not notable enough" shouldn't be an acceptable argument for deletion. Some actual evidence sould be required.
 * WoWWiki is one of the most used sources of World of Warcraft UI modification API information. It has more info than Blizzard supplies on their sites (game site and forums).
 * The argument that WoW info on Wikipedia can replace WoWWiki is ludicrous.
 * Why don't you better spend your time nominating WikiFur for deletion. This uses 4 of 5 references from wikia.com (2 of which are self-referential to WikiFur itself) to somehow justify it's notability. Clearly there is a group of wikipedians targeting WoWWiki and not really concerned about non-notable wikis.
 * In all honesty, I don't really care whether this article gets deleted, but if it does at least use a better argument than a weak notability argument. I expect this article to get nominated for deletion on a regular basis. Some wikipedians clearly love their bureaucracy. --Fandyllic 1:42 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
 * Comment When I nominated this, I didn't realize there were articles on Lostpedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, etc. Since these are unofficial fan sites (hosted by Wikicities even), I would challenge whether they are encyclopedic enough to merit their own articles on Wikipedia.  It is with much consideration that I believe such notability should be proven.  For example, Uncyclopedia is notable; you can clearly see this in its References section.  Tuxide 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They've already been nominated for deletion, and two of the three have been clearly kept, with the third getting strong support, so it'll probably be kept as well. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedic in relation to what? Of course a wiki about a specific subject is going to be smaller than one about the entire world! Kirkburn 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Kirkburn. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or delete all the aforementioned similar wikis. They are all of dubious notability, but I don't see the point in deleting just WoWWiki and not wikifur or wookiepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falard (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - Seems like it fails WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How, exactly? Kirkburn 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not an expert in the vague bureaucracy of Wikipedia, but I hope votes without any argument to support their assertions are considered weak votes. --Fandyllic 3:54 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006

Tuxide 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I take that back, they were not asking for votes (by the rule of the word); however since this is a pro-Warcraft site, I am leaving up the afdanons template and bringing the linkage to attention, to reach better consensus. Tuxide 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Evidence of solicitation for outside voting/spamming on the following pages of WoWWiki:
 * http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=301454
 * http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFandyllic&diff=301498&oldid=300663
 * Fine, I've removed the first one. It was a notification, not a solicitation. I'm not allowed to post about this somehow? As to the second, I'm not allowed to talk to my fellow admins now? I would prefer that you didn't try and twist my words. Kirkburn 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that perhaps the first edit was a little over the line. Mostly I added it as the fact that this article keeps getting nominated is becoming somewhat of a running joke for us :) As to my comment to a fellow admin on WoWWiki - who knows more about the website than someone who has worked on it for years? Do they no right to give evidence here? Because that's how you're making it sound. Kirkburn 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind if you restore that "WoWWiki talk:Village pump" comment, as long as its intention is to address it to your users and not to solicit outside voting. Someone might disagree with me, though.  I've only heard of your site once before, and that was in a copyright problem when I noticed a group of users uploading World of Warcraft screenshots onto Wikipedia from your website, and claiming them as GFDL or PD (which in no way they are, being WoW screenshots they are fair use).  Tuxide 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What, so now the mistakes of others has become relevant to the discussion? Kirkburn 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have seen the deletion banner for WoWWiki here eventually, but I honestly don't consider Wikipedia much of a reference to be too concerned about. I just don't want to let WoWWiki get deleted because of somebody who clearly has an agenda to do it and isn't really applying equal standards to Wikipedia articles. The concern about Kirkburn notifying me seems more paranoid and sad than actual worry about a conspiratorial effort. Whatever. --Fandyllic 3:58 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
 * Like I said, I see nothing wrong with notifying other users (like on your WoWWiki talk page) as long as you're not soliciting votes. I was being a bit prejudicial, that's why I took back that previous comment yet left afdanons on the top.  Please don't edit my nomination, it is obvious enough that I was the one that nominated this article.  Tuxide 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't obvious to me you nominated, so I changed it back. Are you afraid to be identified? Could you at least explain what the heck self nomination means? It sounds like the article nominated itself to be deleted which is silly on its face. --Fandyllic 5:36 PM PDT 27 Oct 2006
 * Self nomination means it is the reason why it was nominated, to make it more convenient for people to Delete per nom or otherwise see it. I don't know why you think I'm hiding myself, it is very obvious that I'm the one who's bold enough to nominate this a third time.  Tuxide 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? What is it in the sentence: "Self nomination means it is the reason why it was nominated"? This seems like a self-referential explanation. However fond of PINE meaning "PINE Is Not an Editor", it is still non-sensical. --Fandyllic 10:01 AM PST 30 Oct 2006
 * It is irrelevant to the conversation, I only brought up the screenshot thing because you're an admin on that site, and I didn't bother notifying anyone on your site when I brought it up on WP:PUI. Tuxide 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kirkburn, et al. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. It seems that none of these references are about WoWWiki itself but instead mention its content in passing. They were just as likely to link to GameFAQs or IGN Vault as to WoWWiki, since they are talking about the content, not the site it is hosted on. Please understand, a site being "good" or "popular with fans" does not make it notable here. GarrettTalk 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I see your point, I would disagree that they are just as likely to link GameFAQs or IGN Vault, because few to no other sites carry the information the WoWWiki does. Kirkburn 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with World of Warcraft. --Ixfd64 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Virtual community section of World of Warcraft and redirect there. Picaroon9288 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep, Alexa rank demonstrates sufficient popularity to be worth mentioning. Kappa 04:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails web content guidelines per my comments in previous AFDs. Alexa rank is totally irrelevant and should not be considered for keeping or deleting an article.  A one or two sentence blurb could be added to the WoW article, but there's no need for a merge of full content.  --Kunzite 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the large Alexa rank, also looking at how large the website is and has, notably, more information about the Warcraft universe than Wikipedia. Don't decline people the right of more information. EDIT: The Single-purpose account? I lost my first account's email (and password, and had quite some contributions on my old Wikipedia account. You'll see it gets better than this. --Michieldegroot 07:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Super strong mega duper Keep (that was a pun on people voting "strong delete" as there is no such thing). Anyway, it is notable, it is well known, it stays. Also, I vote that this is a bad faith nomination as the nominator himself hasn't checked the sites notability and ranking (which was said further up). Havok (T/C/c) 08:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: actually, there is such a thing. There's probably some essay that explains it better than I can, but the purpose of strong/weak isn't to make the "vote" count more but to indicate that that user can/can't be swayed or is certain/uncertain about their choice. If an afd has multiple "weak keep"s and a handful of "strong delete"s the closing admin may well decide to delete anyway if the rationales given by the deleters, together with their certainty, result in a stronger indication of the action to take. GarrettTalk 02:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this very interesting comment on your talk page -- it's very relevant to your stance on this article: "I see that your opinion that notability is a silly criterion is affecting your editing style, and very much to the detriment of the encyclopedia I think. Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers... [W]e must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"  --Kunzite 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the whole premiss silly because nobody can prove or disprove notability. All it takes on Wikipedia is a handful of people voting "keep" and one person voting "delete" and the article stays, same as other way around. People use notability to delete articles which are highly notable, because they themselves don't see the notability. This AfD is a good example, as the person who started it hasn't done any research on it. I stand by my annotation about V and NN, as I find them silly and in many cases counter productive to Wikipedia, as all it takes are enough people. I might want to explain that a little closer on my User Page, if you don't understand what I am saying, please ask me and I will try to explain it. Havok (T/C/c) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully understand your position, and like Jimbo Wales, I find it to be a detriment of the encyclopedia. Notability is in the eye of the beholder, of course. That's why there are guidelines and policies that were drawn up through concensus of Wikipedia users. Your post seems to indicate unhappiness with the deletion process in addition to your (IMO) flawed opinion of notability. I also have same deep concerns about the AFD process myself: it's very arbitrary. Closing admins often treat AFDs as votes rather than the debates they are supposed to be and give un-due weight to personal opinion, but it's hard to change the process. --Kunzite 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is also why this whole AfD is - in my eyes - counterproductive to Wikipedia. As it boils down to right now is who has the most "Keep" and "Delete" votes. People should by now understand that WP:WEB and WP:N are both guidelines, NOT official policy. And that AfDs should not be made to "verify" something, we have cleanup tags for that. Havok (T/C/c) 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, I know... we've played the semantics game about guidelines not being offical policy, before. This is why I feel concur with Jimbo Wales about your position being a detrement to Wikipedia.  Disregarding content inclusion guidelines allows for the inclusion of stuff which dilutes the value of other articles.  I look at the notability guidelines as clarifications of policy, while exceptions need to occasionaly be made, and they are a pretty good standard for article inclusion.  The article up for nomination does not come anywhere near to passing the very lax criteria laid out in the web content guidelines but it gets a lot of I like it votes.  This happens all of the time.  It shouldn't.  --Kunzite 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per wickethewok. Combination 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Something funny about the Alexa rank. Most of its traffic comes from either Wikipedia or Digg or various blogs, unless they insert the URL manually.  There are many problems with the Alexa test, see WP:SET.  Its user base is very small and consists of Internet Explorer users who choose to install a spyware program/toolbar; in particular, webmasters who seek to boost their site rankings.  Since there are admins from WoWWiki coming to this nomination page and citing from Alexa, this point is obviously invalid.  There is a 1UP.com article that merely uses it as a reference, but that's the only context I've seen it used in.  I still don't see how this is notable:  I haven't seen a single independent article written about WoWWiki.  Tuxide 01:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My personal view on the above - grasping at straws. "Webmasters who seek to boost their site rankings"? Please, do not attempt defamation, we do no such thing (nor can!), and are extremely insulted by your suggestion. Why you describe it as "spyware" I do not know, and how exactly do you know "most of its traffic comes from either Wikipedia or Digg or various blogs, unless they insert the URL manually" (isn't that how the internet works?) and "Its user base is very small". I am not using it to 'prove' it either way, but as context. The IE restriction has very little bearing on the matter - WoW is dual platform, so if anything would show fewer results than in an accurate survey. And I still fail to see why you're so weirdly paranoid about people who work on the website coming here to give an opinion. You sound like you wish wikipedia was some exclusive members-only club, where 'outsiders' aren't allowed! Kirkburn 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is to more formally prove that the Alexa test is invalid, by example. In no way do I intend to defame WoWWiki admins, however the tone of some of these responses here, as well as their lack of factuality towards the nomination, is enough for me to argue that the converse is true.  Tuxide 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I would contest that you have not 'formally' proved anything. I do not control the views of others, and note that I have not engaged in mudslinging here. I am here to discuss why this article is of value to wikipedia, and I really do want to have a discussion over it :) Again, no we do not engage in any underhand tactics to gain readership (nor could we, as we have no direct control over the wiki. None whatsoever, and it severely annoys us.). We do not advertise, or post links to us on forums o'er the world. Yet still we remain frequently referenced on wikipedia, and known to many many people. If you are going to accuse people of things they do not do, try and at least back up your statements rather than 'infer' something from a heated debate. It wouldn't stand up in court, it shouldn't here. It's somewhat hard to write an article about a wiki, as it has few identifyable features. No company, no employees, no 'aim', etc. Of course wikipedia has articles about itself, due to the phenomenon it has produced, but other wikis stand in its shadow and correspondingly get little written about them, whatever their notoriety or notability. I just wish to see common sense around here - talking generally, I've seen far too many edit wars over the tiniest, stupidest little thing all because someone wanted to follow a policy absolutely to the letter, to the detriment of 'the whole'. Kirkburn 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kirkburn, etc. Why are articles like Wikifur kept, else? --Adys
 * Comment I feel I should clarify a point. Since many, many wikipedia Warcraft articles reference WoWWiki (and rightly so, as WoWWiki has more info), would it not be just to have an indepedent page describing this site? If something is referenced frequently on wikipedia, does that not aid its notability? Or is it normal to tell users "go here for more info, but we won't tell you anything about the site, even though we keep mentioning it"? Kirkburn 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * there's a difference between a good information source and a notable one; Death Adder's Castle is the quintessential Golden Axe website, but it will never earn an article here because it would automatically fail WP:WEB. GarrettTalk 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I don't think that that was in any way whatsoever a fair comparison. Kirkburn 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:WEB is still a guideline, not an official policy. Havok (T/C/c) 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are three official content policies on Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The guidelines are there to help interpret them.  In this case, WP:NN/WP:WEB due to WP:V.  Because I (still) haven't seen an independent article written about WoWWiki, within good faith I believe it is therefore not a notable enough subject to merit its own article on Wikipedia.  Tuxide 07:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Much fancruft exists on Wikipedia (such as on anime and video games), hence the reason Wikicities was created was to merge this fancruft elsewhere. You should start viewing WoWWiki as the answer to this problem on Wikipedia for Warcraft-related fancruft.  This nomination page is turning into a discussion forum; people are engaging in discussion for discussion's sake instead of voting whether this article's deletion will contribute improvement to Wikipedia.  Please stay on topic here.  Tuxide 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As not meeting WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This fails WP:WEB, and we've deleted popular fansites that fail WP:WEB before, including the FFXI wiki and Serebii, a Pokémon fansite more popular than the official site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. How many times have I said that this week on AfD? --- RockMFR 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kirkburn --RSnook 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — RSnook (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoshuaZ 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My previous, few contributions prior to registration. Everyone has to start somewhere. --RSnook 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a link to this site from the World of Warcraft site is reasonable. Doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry, and worse than that, the entry it currently has is dull.  Ocicat 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than 18,000 articles of varying lengths, hundreds of pictures and a growing community base -Derktar 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment And any of that is relevant how? JoshuaZ 07:30, 1 November 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.