Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape Wikia

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 delete – it's snowing. JamieS93❤ 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Wikia[edit]

Runescape Wikia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wiki, for which I can find two only two passing mentions in reliable sources. The first is in a PC World story here, which was provided by the author to another editor with the remark, "Here's your frickun source. Good night and au revoir." The other is here, amounting to one sentence in the 728-page book Handbook of Research on Open Source Software. I'm sure this site is popular among the people who edit it, but WP:WEB requires that it have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works," have won a notable award, or be distributed through a medium with significant independent editorial oversight, none of which is true here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switching to Snow Delete - this article clearly isn't going to survive, let's snowball this and move on. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only passing mentions in the sources, no secondary sources in the article. Notability is fairly absent. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Runescape wiki really does not qualify as notable. There are really no sources avialable. I confused this with the actual game which already has an article on Wikipedia. That is why I added the "hang on" template. My mistake. The game itself apparently qualifies as notable. If I hadn't posted that "hang on" template we probably wouldn't be having this discussion - sorry. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, it might well have passed speedy anyway as at least being mentioned in a reliable source, and for the claim that Runescape Wiki is the #4 search term on Google (a howler, I know; I removed it). Better to at least have had the discussion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not notable, at all. And I have no idea why one of our editors created it before we were even close to the end of discussion. Wasn't gonna pass either way. Dave Lopo (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; obvious NN. GSMR (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a slam dunk case. --Doink9731 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources. I am not sure why the user created this in the first place since the discussion that gave him the idea had universal consensus to not create the page... Evil yanks (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of many non-notable wikis. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete There is consensus that the wiki does not have the sources available at this time for a WP article, which isn't to say that will always be the case. There's little else to be said. Someoneanother 12:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable wiki, a handful of independent sources, this isn't Wookieepedia you know. 112.203.167.185 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2010 (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/Runescape_Wikia&oldid=1148047425"