Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Radio (2nd 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   redirect to World of Warcraft. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Radio
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website, has been here for several months with no proof of claims of notability, only sourcing is self-published. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As it's not notable. Afkatk (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability other than a source about the site's hacking, which is nowhere near enough real-world context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to World of Warcraft as a plausible search term if nothing else. Otherwise, I cannot find anything that can provide any verifiability of this page. MuZemike 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: As stated previously, only notable reference is criticism. I have attempted to improve the page to verify claims, but am unable to do so, existing references are either vague or non-existant. 86.5.58.234 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google shows 9,500 hits for it. I searched the official World of Warcraft site and added references to two places it was mentioned at, getting praise at one place which has a broken outdated link to a page no longer at their site, and it also listed in their community section.  With millions of fans, only a small percentage have their sites recognized.  There are interviews done with the staff at Blizzard even.  The article needs to be written better though.   D r e a m Focus  01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I get 165 hits, none of them reliable. And nothing in Google news.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try searching in English.  D r e a m Focus  01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, 165 hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have some strange Google settings going on. When you click on my link, do you see 9500 hits?  Perhaps you have a censor program of some sort going on.   D r e a m Focus  04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. I use the proper Google search.  What you're looking at is the count of every reference for your search criteria.  My search is for every unique page that mentions the search criteria.  If one page says "World of Warcraft Radio" 1000 times, your count would be 1000, while mine would be 1.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS show nothing, anyway. Ignore how many there are and focus on what they contain. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Google results alone do not equate to reliable sources, either. Even with the added sources, the real-world coverage still amounts to nothing more than a trivial mention by the official WoW site. This is far from enough to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft has 11.5 million monthly subscribers. Being mentioned on any site that has millions of people hitting it, makes you far more notable than being mentioned in a newspaper of magazine of far fewer readers.  And of course, not everyone who goes to that site will read through every page, but that's the same deal with newspapers and magazines.  And it counts as independent of the primary source, it not connected at all to Blizzard.   D r e a m Focus  04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't base articles over any asserted form of "popularity". A brief mention or two on a single site, no matter how big the site is, is still brief, and far from enough to establish real-world context and therefore notability of the subject. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if no reliable sources independent of a subject discuss the subject, as appears to be the case based on this article and my own research, then no notability can be established, verifiabilty is tricky, and its a clear fail. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to World of Warcraft - Non-notable group/web project. Apathetic as to whether it is a simple redirect or article is first deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to World of Warcraft - there's a chance that someone could use it as a serch term, so a redirect is reasonable; but the group itself is non-notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No coverage in reliable sources to show notability, but may be searched for. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2009 (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.