Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homestar Runner Wiki (2)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge and redirect to Homestar Runner. – Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homestar Runner Wiki[edit]

Following deletion of Lostpedia, this is another generic fan wiki. No cited sources, nothing in Google News, all looks like WP:OR. "Notable users" includes one name, no article on this person, just an interwiki link to the HR wiki user profile (cross-namespace and cross-wiki!). Has about 1400 articles. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any useful content with Homestar Runner. Sarg 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn wiki. Mention it in the Homestar Runner article, but it doesn't merit substantial coverage. GassyGuy 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted!!! An external link on Homestar Runner should suffice. Danny Lilithborne 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Homestar Runner. The external link should suffice as Danny stated above; No reason for a whole article about a fan wiki.--Isotope23 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a short reference in Homestar Runner and expand the actual Homestar Runner Wiki, not the article here. WilyD 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although I object to it being called 'generic' - it's a great resource that even the Brothers Chaps make use of (they've stated it in interviews). Crystallina 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many fan wikis would be the same. There is a long-standing tradition of interaction between the fan community and their idols, wikis just extend this. The point is simply there is nothing to show how this wiki is unusual; the wiki is a notable concept, individual wikis are rarely notable. Ditto blog/blogs, myspace/myspaces, YTMND/YTMNDs. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that YTMND itself isn't notable? Even after all the press it gets? Crazyswordsman 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BaleetMerge per Sarg. RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This really only needs a link or mention at most in the main article. Good Wiki though. Wickethewok 18:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homestar Runner with maybe a small mention somewhere there. BryanG(talk) 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was on AfD once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homestar Runner Wiki. BryanG(talk) 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before, stub if you have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • Keep - It has a large and active community, and The Brothers Chaps say that they use it a lot for keeping track of things on their site, so it has some importance to the official website. - Joshua368 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ditto. And what is the point of wikipedia? That's right to have information about a topic. Why does this not fit into the category?--H*bad 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that you have the right to information, all information on Wikipedia has to be verified by a secondary source. That kind of content is minimal on this article. Crazyswordsman 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable site. Yeltensic42 don't panic 05:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite It bothers me that so many people are so persistent in VfD this article. Remember it was already voted on some of whose supporters I know sadly have left wikipedia in protest of some of the community's behavior. Keep in mind that to date, the main page alone boasts 4.5 million hits and as Joshua mentioned earlier, is routinely used by TBC as a resource. Comparing stats to Lostpedia's, this wiki is twice the size. That does not even include the forum and fanstuff wiki's it has had to expand into. If there are deficiencies in the article, then I urge the community NOT to take the easy way out at do blanket deletes, but to correct those deficiencies and improve the article. How hard is that. Even if it's not "in the news" it is popular enough to many users across the wiki (just do a regular google search and skip over the first few hits and you'll notice people talking about it in their blogs and everywhere else. --Stux 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: LostPedia has 1,176 legitimate content pages and hrwiki has 1,466 legitimate content pages. That's far from twice the size. And being mentioned in blogs isn't sufficient to be included on wikipedia. --Peephole 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Homestar Runner. If it is used often by the TBC, and has importance to the official website, then it sound natural to merge it with the official sites article. Rogue Leader 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article's existence has always bothered me. Though maybe it's just because I'm a major contributor there. (That should probably mean that my vote on this particular page not count, as I'm biased. Flattered, but biased.) — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability asserted. --Peephole 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another vanispam piece about an unremarkable wiki with no sources (meet WP:VSCA and WP:V). A one-liner in the main article would be quite enough recognition. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that vanispam is a definition, not a policy. And for verifiability, then every article but two in this category should be deleted per that rationale; that and thousands of other articles that I am sure have the same issues. I must agree that the article deserves a major rewrite (I honestly don't know what the policy is regarding a rewrite in the middle of an AfD), but how hard is it to do THAT? Something slightly larger than this article migtht suffice, or is that article going to be AfD's too? I am willing to continue the shave but I am afraid that even despite the changes the end result would be deleted anyway. Forgive me for being a little bitter (and verbose), but to me this seems like a sledgehammer solution for a problem that requires pliers, and no one wants to help. Just AfD. --Stux 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rewrite during the AFD is fine. I've done it myself to have articles saved and so far it's worked, but perhaps I only pick easy ones. Yes, VSCA is definitional, but it is a WP:NOT definition. Verifiability is very difficult for websites in general, and few actually pass any sort of strict interpretation. The existence of the site can reasonably be inferred from its existence, and a short description likewise, but where do you go from there ? WP:WEB is not an easy bar to get over, but if Homestar Runner Wiki meets any of those criteria you should add the references showing that to the article right away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry it has taken this long, but thank you very much for your response to my question and advice. I have tried to make a few changes by condensing the article. --Stux 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do we need to verify here that can't be done by A) seeing it exists and B) reading HRWiki:HRWiki:A History? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the site.--Peephole 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Seems like it just needs a cleanup. Merging it with Homestar Runner will just make that article too long and unwieldy, and probably lead someone to spin HRWiki back out of the HR article, spurring another VfD. Deleting seems like overkill, and the undercurrent seems to be that there's a group of people who are less than unbiased in their views. --D Wilbanks 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 10:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I hate to vote this, because it is a wonderful resource and the second hit that comes up in Google for Homestar Runner; however, I admit a link and MAYBE a small paragraph in the Homestar Runner article is all that is justified. Stev0 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put a link at HStR. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner per TomPreuss and others. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know this place, and if anything, it's notable. --The Mu 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few of the debaters, including myself, brought up all the notablilty of this Wiki, and there is not enough of it for it to merit its own article. Of course the informaiton (or a good chunk of it) can stay, but not in its own article. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has been reasonably condensed and I added two references (one is from flashforward but documented by the wiki). I do have one question: where do we draw the line in notability? Does it need to have 15,000 articles? Does it need to be mentioned at least three times in a local newspaper for a city of the size of 100,000? Different people have different measuring sticks which shows how fuzzy this line really is. --Stux 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm assuming that the article has been improved since the inital complaints, because it certainly does have sources. It is not affiliated with TBC (the creators/owners of the Homestarrunner IP and website, for those not in the know), so I don't see why it should reasonably merged into the Homestarrunner article any more than Memory Alpha should be merged into the Star Trek article. In fact, other than content quality, I see no difference in the uniqueness or viability of this article. Perhaps what we need to do is create a WikiProject Homestarrunner and include this page in it? Maybe that will give it the credability it needs to get equal treatment with other fan wikis. WestonWyse 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of fan wikis seem have no articles at all, or to get deleted, because the ocntents are almost without exception unverifiable from independent secondary sources. A short paragraph on the parent article is fine, but fan wiki articles in general have a cruft factor of close to unity - I'm sorry, but the world at large really does not care about anything more than the fact that they exist. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, the Homestar Runner Wiki is one of those few exceptions. I don't edit the Wiki (I DO have my own Wiki which will get an article on Wikipedia just as soon as I get struck by lightning), but there IS maybe a paragraph or two that could be merged somewhere else. I personally think this is more notable than Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia, however, it's not notable enough to warrant an article (mainly because this Wiki has become much more than just a fanwiki). Sir Crazyswordsman 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This debate's lasted for ten days now. I'd like to see a result. AFDs usually don't even last the minimal five days. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homestar_Runner_Wiki_(2)&oldid=1137914764"