Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RhyDin

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. No sources have been provided to attest to the notability of the subject (criterion #2 of WP:WEB). Guild websites aren't enough, because they aren't independent sources - the players publish them (criterion #1), and RhyDin is not "broadcasted" or "published" by AOL or its users, as it is a chat room RPG (criterion #3). --Coredesat 04:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RhyDin

Non-notable online RPG, fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE Percy Snoodle 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. yandman 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is, if anything , even worse than the other similar article nommed today, because it's mostly a long list of "satire" which is neither funny, interesting, or understandable to those who don't already play the game (and, in all probability, not to those who do play the game, either). "Every building has rafters ." Stop, you're killing me! Oh, the hilarity! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several thousand roleplayers over the course of over a decade who would most certainly agree that this role-playing realm is notable. The article is in its infancy, and needs a great deal of elaboration, but it does NOT deserve to be deleted. If anything, the satire section, which is NOT the entire article (or even most of its substance) could stand to be removed. But the entire article? No way. Besides... this meets criterion point number 3 in the Web criteria for notability, being distributed by Dragonsmark.com AND Ringsofhonor.org, let alone its solid place as a part of AOL. Also, I have been tagged as a single purpose account, yet the fact is that I am new to the wiki community, and this is simply the first article I have edited. One of Wikipedia's principles is "Do not bite the newcomers", correct?Sacredepitaph 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sacredepitaph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. As someone who's actually played within this universe, I might be able to offer something unique to the discussion. RhyDin is nearly synonymous with text-based role playing on AOL, and has been since the eariest versions of AOL. It dominated the Arts and Entertainment section of AOL chat rooms for nearly a decade, and remained the prominent role play setting within AOL until four or five years ago. An overwhelming percentage of current AOL role players started within the RhyDin universe, and you can still find rooms open that play RhyDin-style games.

With that said, though, I'll be the first to admit that it's going to be a pain in the ass to reference. Because RhyDin began as an AOL-only universe and developed in a quasi-evolutionary way into its current form, you'll be hard pressed to find information on its history. This is mentioned on the talk page, although not much has come of it. No new editors seem to have arrived, and my own attempts at finding non-trivial references that would meet WP:WEB -- WP:SOFTWARE is inappropriate, as the game merely uses AOL -- have met with futility.

Shame to see it go, but what can you do? Consequentially 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment perhaps the article could be merged with AOL Senate Sim and AOL chatroom game to make an article on AOL online games? Percy Snoodle 11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I appreciate that a merge suggestion saves all the work I've done on the RhyDin entry from being a complete waste, I still have to assert that RhyDin deserves its own dedicated entry. It only began on AOL, and has since evolved far beyond it. Although the AOL chatroom game entry is also something I've got a considerable amount of experience with, so that may become one of my next targets for editing. Yes, RhyDin is difficult to chronicle, but I am willing to do every bit of research necessary. As I stated before, this article is in its infancy, and it is only recently that I took up the reins and decided to flesh it out. The Satire section has since been deleted, and my focus with the article is in the process of shifting. What it comes down to is the fact that this world has a huge amount of relevance and was a huge contributor to the formative years of literally thousands of people out there. Most people have since laid their characters, and their RhyDin experience, to rest, but the fact remains that it literally meant the world to many, many people. I feel very strongly about this, and I can't just let it all be for naught.Sacredepitaph 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment my advice in that case is to copy the article to a subpage of your user page, and work on it there until you have some verifiable sources which establish RhyDin's notability. Once you do, recreate the article. Percy Snoodle 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Oh, but of course. This article is not going to go away for good, even if it is deleted now. As long as Wikipedia exists for the reasons it is supposed to exist, I will give RhyDin the documentation it has always deserved. This is not about a personal agenda. This is about the preservation and distribution of knowledge and information. Sacredepitaph 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research, or, at best, failing WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 16:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment My legitimate entry has to go, but useless entries like Wikipedia:Avoid_using_preview_button are allowed to remain? Is Wikipedia really open and welcoming to all people willing to share free knowledge, or is it some elitist clique I have to somehow muscle my way into in order to be accepted? Sacredepitaph 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an encyclopaedia entry. Anything beginning with "Wikipedia:", "User:" or "User Talk:" aren't part of the encyclopaedia itself. yandman 12:00, 25 October 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.