Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodclan

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. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodclan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Letting the wikipedia community again decide on this, for me this is just a player guild from the Ultima Online game not meeting encyclopedic notability criterias Jestix 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may search roleplaying for details. This is more of an information center on Orcs and roleplaying community for Orc fans. You may as well delete Orcs if your going to delete this. Lenapeco911 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is a single clan even slightly comparable to a fundamental concept that has shaped the whole of modern fantasy writing? — Haeleth Talk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. And don't expect any objection from me if someone nominates the Orc stuff for deletion. --DrTorstenHenning 08:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB by a mile and doesn't appear to come close to anything else... RN 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clan; guilds and clans need to be truly exceptional for inclusion here, and this one doesn't meet that standard. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Daveydweeb. JIP | Talk 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, gaming clan with delusions of grandeur. — Haeleth Talk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable gaming clan. Don't delete Orcs as just because an unencyclopedic non-notable gaming clan are not notable, that does not automatically mean that an encyclopedic article on a notable fantasy standard should also be deleted. Not a great straw man. MLA 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This clan is older and has more history than Shadowclan and yet shadowclan and many other clans are never deleted from this website. I would also say this is more of an ORC Fan website and information center on Black Speech. Rather than a guild only website. --Lenapeco911 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "voted" already aboth, (however this is not vote nevertheless)

Not going into details of this on notability discussion, but please keep your reality straight.

this clan is older and has more history than Shadowclan -- Lenapeco911

Bloodclan was founded in November 2003 -- Bloodclan article

Shadowclan began in October of 1997 -- Shadowclan article

However age is not criterium per se.--Jestix 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and it's worth noting that Shadowclan is up for deletion now as well, so comparing it to that page doesn't help much. However, even if that clan stays, this one shouldn't, as it lacks any external references beyond its own page to prove its notability. Terraxos 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will redo this with a lot my detail and follow all the guidelines. Delete it if you want so I can take another shot at this. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning. --Lenapeco911 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lenapeco911, Actually Deletion is not cleanup. If the discussion results into a delete this is not because the article is badly written, it is because the lemma has been decided to be not notable for an encylopedia. You are then actually not supposed to just start the same article again. Badly written articles about notable topics debark in the "cleanup" section not "afd". --Jestix 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clan invented many words of black speech (i.e pizbur). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.115.19 (talk • contribs) U01:11, 5 September 2006.

Note You cannot invent words of Black Speech. Black Speech is the fictional language of the orcs and other evil baddies in Tolkien's fictional world. To create new words for it, you would have to be Tolkien. If you're claiming they modified Black Speech, that's true, but I don't see how that is relevant here. Shazbot85^Talk 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note Review this user's edit history. Edits on this AfD page are the only ones the user has ever made. It is extremely rare for a new user to go directly to a new AfD page and begin editing. I'm unsure as to begin to start investigating sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, but Will ask for outside assistance from editors that do. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn While I feel my opinion is valid, I withdraw it in the interest of being NPOV. It's very possible my biases could come into play in this discussion and that's against the whole spirit. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. The only keep vote is by the author. Fishermen1 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Simoes 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs)

Lock since the author already announced to recreate the page with similar content if it gets deleted, I think it might be wise to lock the lemma in case of deletion. Or this bloodclan thing just keeps us busy. --Jestix 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic information needs to be unbiased. If another gaming guild, shadowclan, is to be allowed then you must allow all other gaming guilds. Or else delete shadowclan as well. If not, who is it that would then decide which gaming guilds are "noteworthy" and which are not? To remain unbiased you must apply a uniform policy.Jackson512 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Comment Bloodclan does not come close to meeting notability requirements as Shadowclan does. Letting one highly notable gaming guild in does not mean the inclusion of every gaming guild. Thoseo f no note, such as this one, should be left out. Shazbot85^Talk 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hello Lena, I strongly suspect Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (where you are once again in violation) or at least a single purpose account! To your comment, how about no? Because one thing may be noteworthy because of e.g. orginality, does not mean everything of the same class is just as notworthy. This is by the way an uniform policy. --Jestix 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am not Lena, and you will not belittle my arguments by accusing me of hiding behind a false identity. As if any identity can really be verified on the internet. If you contend that shadowclan is notewrothy and bloodclan is not, that is your opinion, and certainly a subject for debate, but this is hardly the medium for it. I'm a live and let live kind of guy and you won't see me posting in support of shadowclans deletion on that page. But you ignore one portion of my argument wholly. Who is it then that would decide which gaming guilds are noteworthy and which are not? Certainly not you, since your opinion is obviously biased pro-shadowclan. There are hundreds of other gaming guilds out there that are far more original than either shadowclan or bloodclan, if that is to be your sole criterion of acceptance. At its core this site is for entertainment purposes only, as shown in the welcome screen "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Which makes it sound fun. So I say let shadowclan have some fun by being listed here, along with all others who care to make the effort and consider themselves "original" or noteworthy.Jackson512 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Your comment makes little to no sense. This is the Bloodclan AfD page, there is nothing in relation to Shadowclan here. Where did you come to find out about this "Shadowclan", if you be such a new user? Shazbot85^Talk 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJackson is right. Fair is fair, gotta either keep them both or lose them both. I say keep em. Choirboy 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC):— Possible single purpose account: Choirboy (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

KeepIt was recently agreed to keep the Shadowclan entry. This group is closely linked to Shadowclan, taking on the role of "carrying the torch" so to speak, therefore it should stay. It is extremely notable as well. If it is removed, then the Shadowclan entry should be removed as well. Drouillm 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong In what way are they linked to Shadowclan? Did they imitate them? Yes. nowhere are they a part of Shadowclan though. Is an Elvis impersonator as notable as Elvis? Not in the least. Niether is Bloodclan as notable as Shadowclan. Shadowclan invented a new way of roleplaying. Bloodclan imitated them. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it does not notability make. This vanity page has got to go. Shazbot85^Talk 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your opinion Bloodclan is not notable, but there are many, many more who believe it to be better known than Shadowclan even. It's wrong to delete a page because a vocal minority of people don't "believe in it". By the way, Wikipedia has a rather detailed article on Elvis impersonator's :) Drouillm 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found websites to compare with Shadowclan. I know we're discussing Bloodclan but since I noticed this has evolved into some clan battle and Shadowclan survived a deletion nomination, I had to compare. When I viewed shadowclans deletion nomination entry. User Shazbot85 made supporting comments to keep the article and then later that he should not have commented since he has biases views as a member of Shadowclan. Which would make his comments here irrelevant. I personally feel both Shadowclan and Bloodclan are noteworthy.

Orc Community Website This website appears to be well known and respected. They have Shadowclan listed right next Bloodclan. Gamers Network Another well known website has them listed here. Another Community website Has them listed as well.

member list This website also has archives of mentioning runuo sponsership. I was going to throw a link up for Runuo but it's already listed on wik and you can click the link.

Thordice 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Comment please do not ignore my comment above and I have made a lot more than 2 contributions outside this topic.

Thordice 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those in favor of keeping this article ground their position by asserting Bloodclan's equal notability with a similar gaming group, Shadowclan, whose article has survived a identical AfD nomination. According to the Shadowclan article and its AfD discussion(s), their notability comes from the following:

- Being interviewed for a commercially-published book (a "...for Dummies" book, no less). [1]
- Being written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [2]
- Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [3], [4]
- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites. [5], [6], [7]

According to this discussion and the present article, Bloodclan only appears to share this last item, attention from non-official game websites. Aside from falling short of equal notability with Shadowclan, this also constitutes failing to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Simoes 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [3], [4]

- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites

Blood clan appears to share the last two items and from what I have noticed there is several other gaming clans that survived AfD's with none of the above. They were and still are featured by runuo and UOGamers Website who in my opinion have a larger community than some of the shadowclan links you provided us with.

Thordice 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

First (though I suppose this is obvious to you and everyone else), you have no evidence for your claims. Second, the last two on my list are neither necessory nor sufficient according to Wikipedia:Notability (web). And even if other gaming clans have survived AfD nominations without having any of the aforementioned items (another claim of which you provide no evidence), this would not be grounds to keep this article (refer to the logical fallacy, tu quoque). Simoes 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this article was submitted it did lack some evidenc and detail. However I prefer it be wikified or kept because it's more than noteworthy. Visit the links I already provided above who represent online gaming websites that feature Bloodclan. Runuo and UOGamers Developers also have mentioned that they focus their attention on Bloodclan.

Thordice 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vanity page has zero notability. Being mentioned on non-official gamer sites doesn't establish notability, nor does it compare to the recognition Shadowclan has garnered from game developers. Thanks for your effort though! Shazbot85^Talk 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodclan has garnered recognition from game and software developers as well.contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Like who? Shazbot85^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. Shazbot85^Talk 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable gaming clan. Not WP:V, doesn't meet WP:RS/WP:OR. Wickethewok 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bloodclan has garnered the recognition from the runuo team. [www.runuo.com Runuo Website]. They have also been the main focus of attention from two online communties. One of them even has several guilds on several different games more noteworthy than shadowclan within it's community. Please don't ignore my quote from earlier as well. I had to compare. When I viewed shadowclans deletion nomination entry. User Shazbot85 made supporting comments to keep the article and then later that he should not have commented since he has biases views as a member of Shadowclan. Which would make his comments here irrelevant.

Thordice 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't going to cut it. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web), as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and flurry of sockpuppets. RFerreira 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind the flurry of sockpuppets are mostly Shadowclan sockpuppets.

Thordice 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shadowclan has nothing to gain or lose by this article being here, they have notability, this does not. I seriously doubt that Shazbot85 is a sockpuppet Thodice, nor are Fisherman1 or Jestix or Wickerhewok or 90% of every other person who commented that a delete would be appropriate. I see very few comments made here by anyone who had anything to do with the Shadowclan page, besides myself, Shazbot 85 and...oh, you! Simoes, who has constantly made it clear to you that your fan-site "notability" is not adequate was not involved with Shadowclan either. If anyone is sockpuppeting here, it's you. Be careful of whom you accuse of socking, Lena/Jackson512. Zinian 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Laughable claims of notability.-Kmaguir1 04:34, 9 September 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.