Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halopedia (second nomination)

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 - there are no reliable sources mentioned in the article with the site as the subject and none have been provided during the course of the AfD. The fact that other similar sites have articles is not a basis for the inclusion of this one. If reliable sources can be provided there is no reason why this article can not be recreated, but as it stands it fails WP:WEB. Yomanganitalk 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halopedia

Does not pass WP:WEB. The articles linked to have only mentions of the website. This page was previously nominated for deletion here. The result was merge to Halo (video game series). Khatru2 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not nessacary Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing to justify this article's existing. GassyGuy 08:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral based on Angela's argument below unless I have time to re-examine the sources linked from this one. GassyGuy 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Upon further review, I am back to delete. While it does have references, few if any of them appear to concurrently satisfy that the source be reliable and the coverage non-trivial. GassyGuy 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Halopedia is the biggest information database for the Halo Universe just like Wookiepedia is the biggest information database for Star Wars. Also this reference is needed on Halopedia so people know where to put Halo articles that aren't notable enough to stand on their own in Wikipedia. Much in the same way that Memory Alpha exists so that people can move obsure Star Trek articles that get aFD on Wikipedia. -- Esmono 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some gaming WikiProject that can link to this as a depository of Halocruft? I believe there is, but either way, this simply doesn't have the coverage that those other two have. GassyGuy 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Halopedia is the biggest Halo information database almost as big as Comixpedia in the amount of articles it has. --Esemono 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Simply put, the Halo games have a large following. The fanbase is not necessarily larger than Star Trek or Star Wars, but there is enough interest in the site that it recieves 1000-2000 unique visitors a day. There have been 40,000 visitors from the USA, and significant numbers of visitors from 25 other countries. (Stats) Also, the site is more active than some smaller sites which have their own articles here on Wikipedia, such as PlasticsWiki or TikiWiki (Chart). In fact it has stayed in the top 25 most active wiki sites on wikia.com since it transfered to that format. To me, these statistics conform to the notability policy at Wikipedia. -Ed! 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Those stats seem too low. I don't think you're accounting for page caching. Google reports 20000 impressions per day, and that's usually a underestimate of about 33%. Angela. 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you or anyone else who believes the article should be kept demonstrate how this website satisfies WP:WEB? Has the website been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? Has the website won a well known independent award? If so, please add references to the article. Khatru2 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:WEB states it is a "rough guideline." Can it be ignored in this instance with the argument behind keeping the article? I'm not well aware of how the rules work, so correct me if this is impossible. --OGoncho 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wookipedia has an article, Memory Alpha has an article! Why can Halopedia have an article! Its Sony Bias and jealously if you ask me! (Kidding) --Johnston49er 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --KoRndoG 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
— Possible single purpose account: KoRndoG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Anyone notice how the things supporting for keep are much more detailed and reasonable? --Johnston49er 03:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the keep support prior to this was along the lines of "other wikis have articles, so this one should too" or were trying to justify it as a Halo website instead of as a website in general so, while detailed, they were not particularly reasonable. However, what is a reasonable keep argument is Angela's below, which at least attempts to show how this meets actual WP guidelines. GassyGuy 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:WEB since it's been mentioned in various news sites (which are linked from the article). At least 20,000 impressions a day and 26000 Google hits. (disclaimer: Wikia now hosts this site). Angela. 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reliable some of these news sites are:
  1. Wikiriot News - Halopedia - 07/31/06 - appears to be a blog posting.
  2. Bungie.net - Halopedia Knows - 2/14/06 - also appears to be a blog or message board posting, but it may be from the game developer. I am not sure about this one.
  3. Tahlequah Daily Press - Old Man Winter freezes out Halo tourney - 02/20/06 - is a reputable news source, but only has a passing mention of the website.
  4. http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Halopedia:What_Halopedia_is_not - the website itself.
  5. Navy News - Halo3 - 07/03/06 - similar to number 3, reputable source, only a passing mention.
I am still not convinced that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works as outlined in WP:WEB. If it is, please correct me. Khatru2 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Other sites having articles seems like a reasaonable reason, its also a very active site.--Johnston49er 06:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Inclusion_is_not_an_indicator_of_notability for reasons why many do not consider "there are other articles about <category of things>" to be a reasonable argument. GassyGuy 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Bungie.Net is a very reputable source! Its the actual company that makes the game! --Johnston49er 03:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--- It's a good Wiki with a good community and a lot of hard work put into it --Climax Void 10:48, 23 October 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.

Strongly keep I'm a member of Halopedia and I think it should stay. The list of members on Halopedia is growing steadily every day and I've met lots of friendly new people. Before you vote to delete it take a look at the sit yourself: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Moray594 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Halo is a big thing and halopedia is an amazing source of information regarding Halo. Deleting an article about halopedia is just silly. -- PEZ (talk) (Founder of halowiki.net, another Halo knowledge source.) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)