Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnarok Wisdom
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. W.marsh 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ragnarok Wisdom
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as there's articles about less notable things that haven't been deleted. Torte 11:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with you; There are articles that are less notable. However, if we're to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would be insane to try to delete the articles in order of notability starting with the least notable. For that reason, I think it's best to just look at the guidelines we have and not at other articles. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Of course one can't expect every unnotable article to be deleted :P. But see what I posted just below, it's notable enough on an "average scale", at least that's what I think. Torte 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment One mistake should not compound another, and if there are less notable things in WP they should be nominated as well. There isn't infinite manpower here; you can't expect everything to get caught immediately. ColourBurst 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No, I know they shouldn't, nor am I saying they should :P. But what I mean is that it's, on an "average scale", it's still notable enough to be kept. Torte 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with you; There are articles that are less notable. However, if we're to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would be insane to try to delete the articles in order of notability starting with the least notable. For that reason, I think it's best to just look at the guidelines we have and not at other articles. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Same reason as Torte. Achiel 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)User registered today, this is his first edit--Wafulz 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, This article was not created by the comic creator, thus is not advertising under WP:WEB. Also, same reason as Torte. MVEAlpha 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)— MVEAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Comment Have you read WP:WEB? Where does it say that a comic is notable if it's not being used for advertising? ColourBurst 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons Torte listed. Pyro1588
- Comment. Wait a minute, how am I a single purpose account? I didn't register just to vote on this AfD. I've written the articles Samkin_Aylward and Hordle_John. My account was registered some time before this AfD. Pyro1588 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, removed. I was suspicious because you've only had two other edits ever, both of which were nearly a year ago. Also, judging from your rationale to keep, I figured you weren't really an experienced editor- you're basing your opinion on a completely subjective statement that doesn't really hold its ground. I was under the impression you were "called" to the discussion and remembered you had an old account you hadn't used in a while. --Wafulz 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Wait a minute, how am I a single purpose account? I didn't register just to vote on this AfD. I've written the articles Samkin_Aylward and Hordle_John. My account was registered some time before this AfD. Pyro1588 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and because it's cruft. As for the keeps based on what Torte wrote, that's invalid. Simply because we haven't gotten around to deleted every un-notable article is not a reason to keep an unnotable article -- otherwise we could accomplish logic. Circular logic is neither required nor desired. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As I said above, of course one can't be expected to do that :P. But what I really meant was that it was still notable enough on an "average scale" to be kept... I should just put that argument in my ctrl+C, shouldn't I? =P. Torte 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your argument at all. What exactly is the "average scale" youre referring to? --Wafulz 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Read what I'm posting just below here :P. Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. There is no such thing as "average scale" of notability. An article is notable, or it isn't. Have you read WP:WEB? Use that, and not this "average scale" theory that you made up, to make your argument. ColourBurst 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Nyah, sorry about not being clear, I was tired at the time of writing and probably didn't make it much clearer, or possibly worse. My apologies. I still stand with that I think it's notable enough to be kept. Also, what I meant with "average scale" is that there are things that, as far as my knowledge goes, are less noteworthy but are considered notable. Once again, my apologies if I wasn't making much sense. (P.S. I'm not very well versed with the policies on the site either, so thanks for linking it to me, I'll read it as soon as I have time available.) Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What exactly is your criteria for being "noteworthy"? You say that there are things that are "less noteworthy" but notable. ColourBurst 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Nyah, sorry about not being clear, I was tired at the time of writing and probably didn't make it much clearer, or possibly worse. My apologies. I still stand with that I think it's notable enough to be kept. Also, what I meant with "average scale" is that there are things that, as far as my knowledge goes, are less noteworthy but are considered notable. Once again, my apologies if I wasn't making much sense. (P.S. I'm not very well versed with the policies on the site either, so thanks for linking it to me, I'll read it as soon as I have time available.) Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your argument at all. What exactly is the "average scale" youre referring to? --Wafulz 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As I said above, of course one can't be expected to do that :P. But what I really meant was that it was still notable enough on an "average scale" to be kept... I should just put that argument in my ctrl+C, shouldn't I? =P. Torte 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - No sources, failing WP:WEB, WP:V. Wickethewok 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB, and hopefully we'll get around to deleting even less notable articles in due course! --Steve 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - While the comic may not have a significant Alexa rating, I believe it has been an influence in several similar gaming comics, and is highly unlikely to cause a cluttering effect on anything in particular. It may be helpful to trim the article to a somewhat reduced state, such that it shows the history of the webcomic rather than a high level of fluff (such as detailed character listings), but deletion may be over the top. Theogrin 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We can't just take your word that it has been an influence on other gaming comics. You'd need to provide reliable third-party sources to prove it. Deletion is not over the top if none of the information in the article can be verified. ColourBurst 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fairly certain that sources exist that would make this article pass WP:WEB. I personally don't know them, but I encourage anyone who does to add them to the main article now. Once the article passes WP:WEB, any claims of notability are nullified and this article will survive AFD. Inmatarian 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I spoke to the author of the comic, and he gave me some links which might satisfy WP:WEB. If anything, these do at least demonstrate that the comic exists as an important part of the fan-based community of Ragnarok Online. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I again stress that if these links help satisfy WP:WEB, that someone make sure they are incorperated into the body of the article. Inmatarian 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The links you provided are of fansites, which are not reliable sources because they are self-published by fans. Reliable sources are things like newspapers and magazines. ColourBurst 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I spoke to the author of the comic, and he gave me some links which might satisfy WP:WEB. If anything, these do at least demonstrate that the comic exists as an important part of the fan-based community of Ragnarok Online. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I again stress that if these links help satisfy WP:WEB, that someone make sure they are incorperated into the body of the article. Inmatarian 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete original research, unverified by reliable third-party sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - While the article may intrinsically fall under WP:NOT, as may several other listed webcomics, it contributes to both the List of webcomics (which is, in its own manner, a directory) -- and the Webcomics Wikiproject, should the article meet the requirements for a meritable one. Theogrin 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 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.
