Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogwarts Extreme

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. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Extreme

Fails WP:WEB rather badly, Alexa rank >160,000, non-notable, non-encyclopedic VoiceOfReason 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only is this article short it's also inaccurate. It's never had that many members and it's not the most realistic. Oldest maybe but it's certainly not the most advanced. It doesn't record the sites history although if this was written by a staff member that would explain it since its full of said conflict and the staff is corrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFlare (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 August 2006

  • Brevity is not a reason to delete an article, and neither (to some extent) is inaccuracy. Non-notability is. VoiceOfReason 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The content of this article really is not notable, but an article about RPGs based in the Harry Potter-verse in general certainly would not come amiss since it is a highly popular fandom activity and certainly is noteworthy. At least as noteworthy as fanfiction. Mothwing 22:35, 1 August 2006

I don't believe it should be deleted. A few of us on the site are currently working on putting an accurate history together to edit the Wikipage. We will update it as soon as possible. A few of us already have added our two cents. I've been a member of the site for almost as long as I can remember, so I am working on putting the history together myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.202.145 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 August 2006

  • Comment - Once again, brevity and accuracy are not the issue here. Notability is. Review the terms of WP:WEB. Does the subject of this article meet those criteria? If you believe it does, explain how. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. VoiceOfReason 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article makes no attempt at providing verifiable notability. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Satori Son 18:26, 4 August 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.