Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 no consensus, so Keep. Renomination in the usual timeframe; can't cut a break here. — Deckiller 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFXIclopedia

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Previously deleted content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia). However this was over a year ago, so I'm giving it the full AfD again. I originally prodded it [1], but the author removed it with this explanation: [2]. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would this page be marked for deletion, but something like WoWWiki is not - this page was actually a copy/paste of the WoWWiki page. FFXIclopedia contains more articles than WoWWiki does and probably has a much larger user base. FFXIclopedia has nearly 100,000 unique visits a month and should be recognized for that. I do believe that FFXIclopedia meets the first criteria specified on WP:WEB, at least as well as WoWWiki does. This is not an advertisement. Wikipedia is probably the last place an FFXI gamer would go to find how to complete quests/missions or find other factual information about Final Fantasy XI. FFXIclopedia is already referenced in numerous places on Wikipedia - see Final Fantasy XI for example. Wikipedia has borrowed information from FFXIclopedia in numerous cases - see Final_Fantasy_XI_character_classes and Vana'diel. There is no solid reason to delete this page --Ganiman 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is notability, not number of articles. WoWWWiki simply appears to be more notable overall. Since you are contesting this deletion, I will list the article for full AfD to allow discussion. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the notability of FFXIclopedia is even in question. Please, feel free to browse the site, look at the number of users, etc... the information that is in FFXIclopedia is amongst the most accurate for Final Fantasy XI. As I said, Wikipedia itself has used it as a resource already. It seems the community has already spoken. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about. --Ganiman 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --TruthbringerToronto 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory Bwithh 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's understandable that Wikipedia is not a web dictionary, but then why would pages like WoWWiki and GuildWiki be acceptable where this is not? Like it or not, FFXIclopedia has become a piece of Final Fantasy history and is referenced in numerous places in Wikipedia already. --Ganiman 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ganiman. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I'd like to see from the "keepers" is specific examples of how exactly this website passes WP:WEB. It was claimed on the talk page (and copied above) that it does pass criteria 1, which states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," but where's the proof? Also, if Wikipedia has in fact used it as a resource in the past, then it should be a citation in that/those article(s). What we need to focus on here is whether it merits its own article. Provide sources here folks. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Seeing as WP:WEB is a guideline and not a policy, there is no need for it to pass notability. And the fact that you get 26,700 hits from google when searching for "site:FFXIclopedia" it is notable enough to be added. As well as it being a great resource for FF information. What I would like to see from the Deletionists is a reason why this does not merrit it's own article when it has so many articles, and has that many hits on Google? Deleting something for the sake of deleting is not the Wiki way. Havok (T/C/c) 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Hoary 07:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Needs heavy clean up as well as less pov. And needs to be worked on because right now it's a stub.
  • Keep Notable, however requires cleanup. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alexa traffic rank is 48,379. WoWWiki, on the other hand, has a rank of 5,737. Also, searching for FFXIclopedia using "site:FFXIclopedia" yields 7 unique results. Searching for just "FFXIclopedia" (in quotes) yields 71 unique hits. All the other hits are either repeats, individual articles in the wiki, or message boards and irrelevant sites - therefore, the 27,100 number is invalid, and this site fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As I have said above, WP:WEB is not a policy, so there is nothing to fail. And using Alexa is silly seeing as it requires people to install a plugin, which not many have. So that in it self makes your vote void. Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, if you throw that out, then you still have the search engine problem. It fails the search engine tests miserably. The site obviously isn't that popular if it's only gained a few Google and Yahoo hits in the last year or so (it was deleted for lack of notability stemming from the search engine test). Subjects here must have verifiable notability. With only 7 or 71 Google hits and only a few more Yahoo hits, there isn't any. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment That's the problem with "notability", as it is very much POV. It may not be notable to you, but it is notable to someone. Havok (T/C/c) 10:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The fact that it has 15 thousand plus articles makes it notable to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment My significant-other is quite notable to me, but I certainly wouldn't start a Wikipedia article about her, so saying "this site is notable to me" isn't a compelling argument. One of the questions here is whether it's notable to enough people. WP:WEB isn't policy, no, but is is a consensus-based guideline, which articles can be scrutinized against. Show us multiple WP:RSs that have reviewed or otherwise discussed this website. Per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment So, in essence of what you are saying, there could be a small religous culture in a rain forest that consists of only a couple hundred people. Are you saying that their religion would not be considered "notable" because not enough people believe in it? --Ganiman 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
              • If it's not written about in a reliable source, then no it wouldn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth." --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to address three points: First, in response to claims that the wiki is not a web directory, I give you this page: List of wikis. If the wiki is so strict as to have a page exclusion based upon the "non-web-directory" criteria, then what is the point of that page. That page is intended to list notable wikis. FFXIclopedia.org is a noteable wiki. The inclusion in the wiki is not to just add another directory listing, but to give recognition to a notable wiki. Second, to those using Alexa as a basis for comparison between WoWwiki and FFXIclopedia, your premise is inherently flawed. The user base of WoW is almost 100x that of FFXI. Thus any traffic for a database used for WoW will outstrip any traffic for a database for FFXI. It's like comparing the population of New York with the population of Rhode Island and saying that Rhode Island doesn't deserve recognition as a state because it doesn't have enough people. The fact is that FFXIclopedia has more data about its game, then WoWwiki has about WoW. FFXIclopedia is a more notable website for FFXI, than WoWwiki is for WoW. Finally, for the FFXI game, FFXIclopedia is one of the premier websites. The fact that it is wiki based makes it even more noteable. It is the only user-driven database for the FFXI game out there. It is the most dynamic and the most up to date. In comparison to traffic of other FFXI websites, FFXIclopedia ranks near the top. Thus, in summary, it is notable because it is one of the largest FFXI sites on the web, it is wiki based, and it is the only user driven website for FFXI. - Mierin (FFXIclopedia administrator) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolks (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment I think you should have explained what Premiere Community means. A Premiere Community has been official recognized by the game operator as a site helpful to the user and one that is recommended for usage. Currently only five communities (Englsih Communities) rank as Premiere. But I have to say, I haven't found the FFXIclopedia among those.
That being said, as a gamer of FFXI, this Wiki is indeed one of the best and most reliable sources on FFXI. Due to it being a wiki it integreates better than every other page for FFXI all the different games aspects. Depending upon what is needed and usefull it serves as a mere database with lost of different information and is logical connected to each other, but it also serves as a consie game guide or walkthrough for quests.
Other pages for FFXI have their strength either in Walkthroughs or in mere Databases, the FFXIclopedia has both strengths and others. It isn't perfect, but it is indeed a very important tool for FFXI gamers, used by many.
I do play FFXI, I do use the FFXIclopedia as my primary source of information on various things. Do do not play WoW and before this discussion I had heard of various WoW pages, but never of WoWWiki. --84.184.85.201 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Ganiman 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Rolks 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (that comment above by Mierin, is me)
  • Keep In a search for "FFXIclopedia" 34,200 hits from Google, I would say that is notable. It is a excellent source for FFXI related material. --Rbunch 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As the administrator of the site, I think you should stay out of the AfD as you are biased to keeping it no matter what. Havok (T/C/c) 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment That's fair. In truth, I only push the FFXIclopedia b/c of the presense of the WoWwiki and the Guild Wars wiki. If they weren't here, then it wouldn't have even occurred to me to have a wikipedia entry. However, when I noticed that those sites were considered noteable enough for a wiki entry, then ours was even more so. But I'll admit I'm biased. My apologies. --Rolks 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Although my opinion may seem biased, I have posted our site's full history on the Talk Page for anyone wishing to know more about the site. --Rolks 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WoWWiki it seems this entire process is laughable. So a few people who edit Wikipedia play WoW and speak up for it's "notability" while people who do not play FFXI, have no credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community, come here and say FFXIclopedia is less notable. No single person who speaks against the FFXIclopedia page on this AfD have any credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community and there opinions on the notability of the site should be completely irrelevent to this discussion. --Ganiman 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The same complaint you have about the WoWWiki AfD is exactly what's happening here; fans are coming here and saying "keep!", yet all they can attest to is the site's usefulness. Usefulness is not a criteria for keeping an article; verifiability is. Even with all the wonderful things being said about this website here, the article still has no references and no evidence that it passes either WP:WEB (which again though isn't policy, it is a guideline) or WP:V. There's still ample time to fix the article before the end of this AfD; c'mon "keepers", make this article pass criteria! --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just to have asked; Do you not find the article interesting? Do you not "learn" anything about the subject? That is why I never understand deletionists, instead of looking at the content of the article you automatically run for the delete button when you find nothing on Google or Alexa about it. This article isn't a stub, it's full of content; allright, it needs cleaning, but so do many articles on Wikipedia. Someone pushing random article and landing on this article might find it interesting. Is that not the reason we are here? To collect all the information of the world. You may argue that it's not notable, and I would have understand why you would want it removed if it was a silly little stub of two lines with no information about the subject matter. But this article does not fall under that. And it even promotes Wikipedia, by showing everyone that free and available information that can be edited by anyone is good. Havok (T/C/c) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am a user of the disputed wiki FFXIclopedia, and I have made minor edits/changes to it as well. If I can demonstrate other, high traffic FFXI-related sites linking to the wiki and referring to it's content - is that enough ? If another site or author makes certain statements about the wiki, does that meet the criteria ? Will that satisfy the Verification criteria ? There is quite a bit of work to be done to clean up the article, and I want to know what it will take before I take the time to do it. --Eue 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Okay, after taking a closer look at the pages in question, I think I know what the problem was. I have removed the part of the article referring to the history of the web site. I am still prepared to hunt down external references to FFXIclopedia - the issue with a totally third party source is, that our site is considered authoritative amongst people who actually play the game - meaning almost any links thru search engines will be circular (i.e., they will link right back to us, as someone has already pointed out). Please keep discussing, and let me know what else needs to be done. --Eue 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS (WP guidelines regarding reliable sources). Finding a RS that discusses the site would be a good start --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, when it comes to FFXI, I would actually think FFXIclopedia is a reliable source in itself. But we'll keep looking. Still absolutly no reason to delete the article though. Havok (T/C/c) 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Verifiable means "that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I don't see how the verifiable guideline applies to the current version of the article. The facts identified in the article are self-verifying. The FFXIclopedia is a wiki dedicated to FFXI and covered by the GNU license. This is documented on the front page of the FFXIclopedia itself. The origin of the name is similarly self-evident. The age of the FFXIclopedia is verified via the history of the site and oldest pages and the number of articles is verified via the statistics page on that site. The facts are verifiable from the FFXIclopedia itself - so maybe the question is whether that site of a reliable source as to these facts. However there is no more reliable a source of the existence, scope, infrastructure and statistics of the FFXIclopedia than the FFXIclopedia itself. The facts identified in the article can only be verified through the FFXIclopedia. --Gahoo 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete & Discount Meatpuppetry
Totally misses WP:WEB "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article."
1) The article does not show how the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published workd of an independant source.
2) The article does not mention theat the site has won a well known and independent award
3) The article also does not mention that the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. (i.e. major newspapers NOT geocities-style sites.) --Kunzite 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Keep Okay, I have been able to find Alexa ranking for the site : as it relates to Final Fantasy XI-related websites, FFXIclopedia is 4th most popular. The only three sites that are more popular are ffxi.allakhazam.com (which is a general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), ffxi.somepage.com (another general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), and www.playonline.com (the official website for Final Fantasy XI). Generic Alexa ratings or Google searches are not very clear, because of the requirement WP:WEB and WP:NOT seem to need more than just a raw statistic. This particular reference, however, is a categorised search : It is a top five site, when people are searching Alexa specifically for Final Fantasy XI. I have added this source to the article, and now can state that the article now meets WP:NOT. Also, I have read into the standards for pop-culture sites and propose that people bear that guideline in mind as well : insofar as many pop-culture sites will not have the formal press acknowledgments..... in either case, I am more than willing to keep trying, but the Alexa ranking within the subject matter at hand clearly shows the web site is notable. The article has been edited to show the correct citation, as requested. Please keep this article.--Eue 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to keep shooting you down, but it's #4 in a category of only 55 sites. 24 of those 55 are Clans & Guilds, 8 are fan works, and 3 are chats and forums. I do have to give you credit for your efforts thus far though, your researching and citing is good work.
Also, would you mind indicating which policy/guideline you're referring to in relation to pop-culture sites? Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've changed my vote to Neutral seeing as the article is now a stub. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm done arguing this. You seem bound and determined to delete this regardless of what we say regarding notability of the site. Within the FFXI community, FFXIclopedia is notable. I have no clue where this verifiability requirement, or Kunzite's requirements for awards and recognition came from. You all seem to want to place real high standards for this site to meet, and no matter what standards we meet, you all seem to raise the requirements higher. So just delete it.

Our main contention was that if WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are included, then FFXIclopedia should be included as well. Using Alexa, FFXIclopedia is 4 out of 55 sites. However, WoWWiki is 5 out of 45 sites and the Guild Wars Wiki isn't even in the top 10. Yet, both WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are somehow considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but FFXIclopedia is not. Ironically, I called FFXIclopedia a premier site, and AbsoluteDan shot down this statement saying Square Enix doesn't list it as a premier site. But looking at the Alexa rankings, two of the sites listed as premier by Square Enix do not even make the top ten, and FFXIclopedia is listed higher than two other "premier" sites. I don't know how much more proof of notability and suitability for Wikipedia entry you want.

As a minor note, it should be noted that we are only having this discussion because the Wikipedia itself has a List of wikis in which notable wikis are listed. FFXIclopedia is also notable because it is a wiki.

FFXIclopedia, within the FFXI universe, is more notable than WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are within their own universe. That is my arguement; Eue, Gahoo, and Havok have provided my support. If that is not good enough for you, nothing more we say will be. Just delete it. It's what you realy want to do, so just delete it. But you should also delete the WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki too. --Rolks 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to add one more note before this page meets it's doom. We've put up more of a fight to keep this page than WoWWiki and GuildWiki have combined. Both of those pages have been stubs and remain stubs. They were not challanged nearly as much as FFXIclopedia has been, yet pages like Girlfriend are allowed to exist. (Seriously, take a look at that page; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary right? All I see there is definitions of the word and there is nothing notable about it - that crap belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia). Seriously, what is one more page in Wikipedia? So much crap and misinformation is allowed to live here, and people with the most page edits or whatever are allowed to be self-proclaimed Wikipedia police and do what they feel based on the mood they happen to be in that day. As I've said, the entire process is laughable, and I'm starting to believe the editors at FFXIclopedia make better arguments and more sound decisions than the editors at Wikipedia. Delete this page, it's what you want, and no matter what we say, for whatever unknown reason, Dan is going to win, but at least be fair and be thorough and search wikipedia for even more bogus articles and mark them for deletion. --Ganiman 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another small comment here.. I could dig up hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines Kunzite cited. Get over it. --Ganiman 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I love how a page must be verifiable to exist, then there are countless articles in Wikipedia like this: Evil_Ernie_(comics). This gets more and more amusing the more I hit the Random Article link. --Ganiman 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree this is all pretty absurd. One of two things should happen. 1) The more complete history of the FFXIclopedia is added back in with pretty charts and pictures so that it is not a stub-ish entry and actually provides some interesting background on what is without question a notable site in the FFXI community. There would more than likely be no way to verify the facts in the article, but it could have the unverified stub. Or 2) The stub-ish entry is left without the unverified stub. Since the facts the article in that form are self-verifying. I would think that something that seeks to be an encyclopedia would rather have an interesting article with a historical account than the stub-ish article, but I will defer to the larger contributors as to what is preferred. --Gahoo 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


@AbsolutDan : The Pop-culture note I referred to was the final part of WP:RS - which states that while the site must have a verifiable source, it is understood that "due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard." I propose that the site be regarded as a pop-culture site for these purposes.

Also, regarding you dispute of the Alexa source : the content of the other sites in the category are tangent to the fact that Alexa categorized the site in the first place. It is not, therefore, the reliability of the other sites in the category, but the reliablity of Alexa that grants the criteria needed to verify that FFXIclopedia is notable.

As far as people being very concerned about the high number of forum posts and blogs related to the subject : that is the nature of a pop-culture subject. Particularly with Final Fantasy XI, which is a Japanese game with international participation : there are only three English-language publications that are specific to the game, and the only regular press coverage for the game are press releases for the actual game itself (and its expansions). All English-language information or references to Final Fantasy XI in general derives from forum posts and blog entries. That is, until FFXIclopedia was started. But the community of people who play the game have traditionally used forums to spread information. Also, the wider press coverage in English is not very broad, since Sqaure Enix relies on word of mouth and the Final Fantasy name to sell the game; the "hard news" or third party review of the site that the deletionists have been demanding simply will not be there for any web site dealing with this subject matter.

Again, where it concerns the subject at hand, Alexa demonstrates that the site is the 4th most popular site. That meets WP:NOT. I propose that other concerns be relegated to the pop-culture provision of WP:RS - that very accurately describes the kind of site/reference/article we are dealing with here.

@ Havok - I believe someone may have added the stub back to the article to try to save it.... I have removed a large section of material that did not focus on the factual presentation/description of what the site is and why it is important (or, more to the point, why it is importnat enough to be in Wikipedia). --Eue 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS does provide some flexibility when it comes to reliable sources, but note that it still requires a source: "Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected..." That's assuming this site can be considered "pop-culture" --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Be real. Being foruth most popular site in Alexa does NOT meet the criteria. I have the highest rated site for my Alexa category and I certainly don't expect to have a wikipedia page dedicated to my out of date fansite for a television show. I even removed it from an external link entry when someone else added it because I want to avoid conflict of interest. --Kunzite 05:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You said it yourself, your site is "outdated", this site - as I see it - is updated on a daily basis. And seeing as WoWWiki has it's own page, having one for this site dosn't hurt anyone, nor does it hurt Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the site is outdated is because the TV show that it's based on ended a while ago and there has been little new information to update it with. A site being updated on a daily basis still makes no difference. It's still the most popular site on the alexa list and has a rather popular forum that is posed in on a daily basis. This site is non-notable. It fails WP:WEB it should be removedand converted to a link or section on the game page. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd also like to point out that this search really does not do well on a google test.. If one restricts a google search just a bit and searches either: " "wiki.ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " (22 hits) [3] or " "ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " [4] (40,500 HOWEVER, there are ONLY ~20 pages in that search that are not on the ffxiclopedia site itself.) --Kunzite 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To the closing administrator: If this page is no concensus, may I ask that it be relisted to gain more input. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_FFXIclopedia_%28second_nomination%29_f697.html"