Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydro's Battle Net

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, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising a site, nor is it a place to host a 'guide for all of those new members that join the site'. Simply existing isn't a good enough reason to have an article about the website. - Bobet 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydro's Battle Net

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

NN web forum. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. No revelant Google hits besides the site itself. --Gray Porpoise 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Gray Porpoise. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it's just not appropriate for this project. אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-The Page recieves hundreds of hits a day, Although it may not be top of the list on google the site is still recognised amongst the community with 69 registered members.The site has been around for around 1 and a half years and its still going strong. Wikipedia should offer information on recognised sites and not simply dismiss then because a search engine cant pick it up. --Ford206

• 69 registered members? Delete per Ford206. (and per WP:V ) --Xyzzyplugh 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Hydro's Battle Net is small but not little. As Ford206 said this site is still going strong after more than an year, and it deserves to have a chance to get even better. It's not right to just delete something because it seems pointless with no results on Google. Chances are, the best option is to keep this page up for people to actually recognize HBN. - Blaze-kun
• Comment two images at the bottom keep getting tagged as "non-commercial use only". Wikipedia cannot accept non-commercial use only images; such images will be deleted unless their license is changed. theProject 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Like the two above me have said. I believe this page deserves a chance. It may not be on the top of Google's search list but it is a wonderful reference for those who wish to see it and know more of what it's about. A guide if you will for all of those new members that join the site. It gives a good description of the story line the characters that play an important role and build the site up. Besides. Who said Google and Yahoo were God? (Though no one mentioned Yahoo I at least use it) If that's all things are rated on of relevence then Jesus help us all. The site is going strong and is a place for people to gather in the world of RP. Wikipedia shouldn't dismiss this page because it gives Hydros Battle Net a chance to be recognized by the mass of the internet. - Rae-chan

• Comment. Sadly this site does not meet WP:WEB's criteria, which isn't just about search engine hits. It's also about material written by others about the site (of which the site has none), web awards and recognition (of which the site has none), or content being distributed by third party sources (of which the site has none). Google and Yahoo (which uses Google's search technology) are not "gods", but are decent guidelines when combined with other things when determining whether an article on a website satisfies notability guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a free webhosting service and the information would probably be better off on the Hydro Battle Net site. You also admit that you want people to recognize the site, which means the article is advertising, whether or not it's for profit (advertising is not solely done for profit - non-profit organizations can also advertise). On top of all this, none of the material can be verified by reliable sources - this means by third parties. ColourBurst 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the information is verifiable through reliable sources, and on top of this it fails WP:WEB. ColourBurst 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- "keep this page up for people to actually recognize" gives it away. Wikipedia is a website that recognizes subjects worth recognition, not one that subjects use to gain recognition. theProject 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The Article is not to "Advertise" The site as HBN is already an established site know by various members of the MegaMan Community. The Articles main objective was to give others information about the website itself no different from the articles of websites such as RuneScape or Neopets. Although obviously HBN is not in the same league as the two examples it still bears the same principles. The objective of the article is to inform rather than advertise--Ford206 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Asking for recognition is indeed advertisement (see Rae-chan's comment). You have not addressed the fact that the article doesn't meet, and can't meet, Wikipedia's notability or verifiability guidelines. ColourBurst 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:RS indicating that this website is notable, possible advertising violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I fail to see personally how this fails to meet Wikipedia criteria. The information in the page is verifiable, as the link to the site is providied. The characters are all fan-made and are owned privately by the members of Hydro's Battle Net, who have agreed to let me make this page. Copyright is not an issue, even for the images, which have all been drawn by a HBN member, and used with permission. While Google my fail to see this site in a simple search, it DOES exist and the information provided about the site IS correct. Raston00 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. To be verifiable, the information in a wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources, things like books, magazines, newspapers, etc. If Hydro's Battle Net has been covered in any such reliable sources, please list them here. --Xyzzyplugh 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-Come on. The site itself may not be well known, but the article itself meets criteria. It's not really advertising or anything, just information on a certain site. There's not harm in keeping this page up anyhow, and everyone knows that wikipedia is the voice of the people-Diaxiann

• Comment Can you state the criteria it meets and provide proof of such? There are no secondary sources (ie written by people not affiliated with HBN). "There is no harm" is one of the common arguments bandied about - for that, see WP:ILIKEIT, because it's wrong. On top of this, Wikipedia specifically is not a voice of the people (aka soapbox). ColourBurst 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Don't take into account the people who have just come from the site to vote keep as this has less than 100 members and is ridiculously small. J.J.Sagnella 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, Look what I found. A link telling people to vote on the main site. J.J.Sagnella 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentHey, monkey mojo pants. It that topic doesn't specifically ask people to vote for it. Most of the them reckon that it'd be deleted anyway. Ah buuuuuh.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.83.125 (talk • contribs)

"Monkey Mojo Pants"? Well that's new. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? J.J.Sagnella 11:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - only 69 registered members makes it non-notable, surely. Peterkingiron 16:18, 12 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.