Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonfire!

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 keep. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canonfire!

Canonfire! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contensted prod. Now defunct gaming website. This stub has virtually no content, and only remaining source suggests this site was never notable. Gavin Collins 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Retracted per below as of OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete More crap, i would say it's a form of spam almost! Yourname 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Canonfire! is one of the oldest, most popular, and respected Greyhawk fan sites on the 'net. Gavin.collins's claim that the website is "defunct" shows either his lack of interest in doing any sort of research. Simply clicking on the any of the links in the article would show that the website is far from "defunct" (of course, he could also simply not understand the meaning of the word). In addition, the website is owned by author Gary Holian, who has several Greyhawk works to his credit[1], & has received enough recognition from Greyhawk IP holder Wizards of the Coast that the later has allowed the website to host a number of articles owned by the company: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].--Robbstrd 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Canonfire! is mentioned several times on both ENWorld[7] and the Wizards of the Coast website[8].--Robbstrd 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Robbstrd. This is easily the most notable Greyhawk-related site on the net. On the issue of it being defunct (which it isn't), I'm still certain that its place in the canon of Greyhawk merits an article as long as the site remains on the Net, and perhaps even after it's gone. -Harmil 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Site is not defunct (this nominator has a track record of factually incorrect nominations). Robbstrd has showed both sources and signs of notability. Edward321 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Primary sources (from the site itself) don't meet the requirements of WP:WEB, alas. The only secondary source cited in the article actually demonstrates that the site is not notable[9].--Gavin Collins 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Indent or mark your comments as comments. You don't have to do both as either way someone reviewing these comments to determine consensus can see what you meant. That said, a poorly sourced article is a poorly sourced article, but this article makes very serious claims to notability which can be challenged without invoking an AfD. Note also that this is a rare case where I'd defend a primary source with respect to notability. It's not ideal, and I'd like to see a better citation, but the citation with respect to Erik Mona's contributions is in support of the assertion that there exist quasi-official missives from the (at the time) editor in chief of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, the official magazines of the Dungeons & Dragons game, on the site. The citation backs up this claim by citing one such publication. This citation was added by myself, I believe, as a result of a previous AfD or Prod (I can't recall details) in which the claim was made that the site contained only "fan fiction". Canonfire!, like many online communities is a difficult thing to get a handle on. Among its community, it's certainly notable so the question is whether or not the community is notable. Within the context of Dungeons & Dragons, I think the parties involved and the material contained on the site are, in fact, notable. In addition, you're just completely off base calling the site a stub. -Harmil 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I maybe mistaken, but the article is a stub. --Gavin Collins 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Robbstrd Web Warlock 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep This one seems pretty borderline. If it is kept, then it should certainly be expanded to include references from reliable sources and context. As it is written now, it probably warrants deletion. Someone who cares enough about keeping the article should fix it. Rray 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Old established and solidly notable within RPG niche. The content seems concise enough to merge with main Greyhawk article. - Ukulele 21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because it's ancient and defunct, it doesn't mean it's non-notable or useless. See: Pompeii toilets. Mikael GRizzly 14:08, 26 October 2007 (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.