Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameWikis
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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GameWikis[edit]
Fails WP:WEB Eric Sandholm 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: the consensus on the Talk:GameWikis was to delete based on the prod added earlier. The prod was removed without explanation. Therefore, AfD is the next step. I myself am a GameWikis regular and registered on Wikipedia just to mark this article for deletion. Eric Sandholm 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Chris (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per the discussion on the article's talk page. -- Kicking222 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Review other articles at List_of_wikis#Games - many have gone through a similar process of review in discussion pages, and some as far as AfD, and all have been kept. To me, only one or two of those meet WP:WEB, yet the Wikipedia community chose to keep them in Wikipedia. What is different here to merit holding GameWikis up to a higher standard than what those related/comparable articles were forced to pass? I question keeping any of them; but if those are kept, for consistency and equal handling of all, this one should be kept as well. --161.88.255.139 18:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that there is other nn cruft in Wikipedia is not a justification for keeping this nn cruft. Eric Sandholm 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply and Clarification: The fact that they exist is not my reasoning. The fact that comparable articles for comparable other sites/organizations have already gone through the delete review, and in some cases an AfD review within the last month (I learned this when I added prods to those articles, when they were removed, I researched and found many had already been reviewed by the community). Those Wikipedia community decisions on those articles set a precedence, and this one should be kept as well based on that precedence. Regardless of if I agree with the decisions to keep those other articles, I do believe in a level handed and equitable application of policy. I fail to see why this article must be held to a higher standard than what the Wikipedia community used when it chose to keep comparable articles, especially when the decision to keep the other articles was made within the last month, so they are still recent and relevant decisions. --161.88.255.139 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GameWikis is not of comparable notability as some of these sites that have survived AfD. WoWWiki has half the Alexa rank of GameWikis (even though I think it clearly fails WP:WEB). Sensei's Library has been around forever and is widely cited. But some of the others are truly atrocious. Encyclopedia Gamia deserves to be chucked with extreme prejudice (its NUMBEROFARTICLES is a laughable 111). The Vault is not a wiki. Cunnan is a very borderline case, but if it survives prodding it will make it to AfD eventually. I'll even do the honours. Eric Sandholm 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Alexa.com data for GameWikis is skewed. Alexa's posted score is based only on traffic to gamewikis.org, while traffic to guildwiki.org is tracked as a seperate value. The main problem with this isn't current traffic, it's minimal. The problem is that Alexa's score is a 3-month average. It was within the last three months that the main migration from the guildwiki to the gamewikis domain took place. Because of this, it will be about a month yet until the Alexa score for gamewikis.org will be a valid comparison. While not in itself a means of achieving WP:WEB, it was relevant to mention its limitations as you brought it up as how another Wiki survived the community review. --161.88.255.139 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GameWikis is not of comparable notability as some of these sites that have survived AfD. WoWWiki has half the Alexa rank of GameWikis (even though I think it clearly fails WP:WEB). Sensei's Library has been around forever and is widely cited. But some of the others are truly atrocious. Encyclopedia Gamia deserves to be chucked with extreme prejudice (its NUMBEROFARTICLES is a laughable 111). The Vault is not a wiki. Cunnan is a very borderline case, but if it survives prodding it will make it to AfD eventually. I'll even do the honours. Eric Sandholm 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply and Clarification: The fact that they exist is not my reasoning. The fact that comparable articles for comparable other sites/organizations have already gone through the delete review, and in some cases an AfD review within the last month (I learned this when I added prods to those articles, when they were removed, I researched and found many had already been reviewed by the community). Those Wikipedia community decisions on those articles set a precedence, and this one should be kept as well based on that precedence. Regardless of if I agree with the decisions to keep those other articles, I do believe in a level handed and equitable application of policy. I fail to see why this article must be held to a higher standard than what the Wikipedia community used when it chose to keep comparable articles, especially when the decision to keep the other articles was made within the last month, so they are still recent and relevant decisions. --161.88.255.139 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that there is other nn cruft in Wikipedia is not a justification for keeping this nn cruft. Eric Sandholm 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom and discussion. 70.20.64.187 23:16, 11 May 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.