Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial Graal Communication Center

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. - brenneman {L} 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial Graal Communication Center

The article describes a fairly obscure fan forum[1] that only has very vague importance in the game's[2] community.

  • I would like to cite Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Internet "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable" and point out that there are at least two wikis [3], [4] dedicated to the game in question. Loriel 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Members: 280"[5].--Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "was created in July 2006". Too new to be possibly considered as notable. Fan-1967 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NOT a place for forums with only 280 members -- Steel 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete the forums have a significant ammount of controversy surrounding them. This page was split from the GraalOnline article's criticism page so that issues surrounding it are not boggling down the GraalOnline page. This page was made in the effort that the issues surrounding this can have a place to be voiced to those interested in the game. It is also to be noted that deas.--Psychoraymond 01:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE -having a seperate article seperate from the GraalOnline article is important in preventing vandalism of the GraalOnline article. -Eagle23 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: 635 Google results; obscure and non-notable. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete The corporate manager of GraalOnline does not let us list it on the GraalOnline article without vandalizing it. What else can we do? Di4gram 01:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm sure we all feel sorry for your plight if you can't discuss things outside of the site, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an article on the Wikipedia is what you need. By all means report the manager of the site for vandalism (since it's not "his article" to decide what goes into it and what doesn't), but I'd suggest you look elsewhere for a means to discuss if that's the only reason you have for keeping it. BigHaz 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there and we have taken actions to file a complaint against the managers. But the point remains that the UGCC has become more than just a Forums, it has become also a haven for people and a large ammount of contraversy is caused because of it that is worth being addressed, even as a subarticle of the GraalOnline (which it really is meant to be) --Warcaptain 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered myspace or freewebs, or some such sie where anyone may post anything? There you can post whatever you want about your forum. This is not the place for it. Fan-1967 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of places we could put it, but the managers claim that when we link (before we just linked right to the UGCC instead of to this wikipedia article) that we were advertising by making every mention of the UGCC a link.. ie: having something in the criticism section like: "Many people have created fan forums for the game as a reaction to the strict rules, ie: the Unofficial Graal Communication Center." They make a big effort to say this is not allowed because they 'do not allow this link to be posted on graal sites' even though we tell them that Wikipedia is not Graal Online, it is its own entity. As soon as the managers User:Graal unixmad and User:Stefan Knorr are blocked from vandalizing the Graal Online article, I will have no problem deleting this article. Until then there really needs to be a page where the concerns of the players can be heard. --Warcaptain 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding us. It is a large part of the Graal community. It has as much relevance to Graal, and belongs there just as much, as the official forums. Most, if not all, of the UGCC forum users are former official forum users. I agree that it shouldn't need its own article, but it certainly does belong in the GraalOnline article. Di4gram 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem. If it's relevant to the rest of the community, it belongs with the rest of the community. It doesn't appear to have enough notability on its own. If you can't get it into the main article for whatever reason, complain about the behaviour of those who are allegedly vandalising the article or take Fan-1967's suggestion and set up a page elsewhere. Creating a separate article for these forums isn't a means of taking refuge from another person. BigHaz 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable three-week-old message board. NawlinWiki 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE This is a relevant article, and is no less relevant than the GraalOnline's wiki attempt which is little more than self advertisement, only positive self postings, and propaganda, if this wiki is deleted then the GraalOnline wiki should get deleted as well Vipercat 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Do not delete Daltonls 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


  • DELETE, "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable" --Moon Goddess 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
'Generally' is keyword. Since you have made a refusal to let anyone put much more than a single link in the article that these forums are related to, we made our own sub-article for it. --Warcaptain 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
One link is sufficiant for an article for Graalonline. I based my decision on the wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE*

So this stuff doesn't leak onto the Graal Online article --Xc4l1br 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, small minor message boards are not notable. This is not the Graal wiki, Graal Online is a relatively minor game. This message board has less than 300 members and its supposedly notable? Keep everything Graal is one article. T3CK rules. KnightsHFU 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This statement is completely biased as it is from a group of people that were banned from the UGCC for inaproproate behavior. (Proven by the T3CK Rules [the leader, who was banned]) --Warcaptain 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
this statement is completely unbiased, it is a personal opinion, and it would remain my personal opinion regardless if I was an active member of the "UGCC" or not. KnightsHFU 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete, horrible message board, too small to be notable, and agreeing with KnightsHFU, if this is notable, it should be kept to a single Graal article. Even though I don't think it could be in the GraalOnline article, either, because there have been other message boards before, and they're not noted, why should this garbage website? Rich Kyanka 05:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Again this opinion is biased as the user is a member of a group that was banned from these forums. --Warcaptain 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no where near enough people to even have a stub (Thelaughingman 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, no evidence that this meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE agree with others that it fails WP:WEB. Jagen 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Perhaps this page would be better as a subpage of the GraalOnline article? I believe I would do that by moving it to GraalOnline/pagename

That way it would be under the namespace it belongs and not as its own? I see many of your points, but I believe that an article is okay, maybe just under GraalOnline --Warcaptain 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is considered by some to be in violation of WP:WEB then GraalOnline article should seriously be considered for deletion as it has been used and editted by the staff as an advertisement, not as a accurate encyclopedic article. Many Wikipedians are wholly averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted. Someone please explain how this does not equally pertain the GraalOnline article? Vipercat 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom, fancruft. --Merovingian - Talk 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being under the GraalOnline namespace still does not make it noteworthy --logan

I have moved this to be under the GraalOnline namespace, I am sorry for giving its own namespace I forgot about being able to put it under other namespaces! So I am removing deletion notices etc

  • I believe WP:SP says that articles in the main namespace should not use subpages... --Kinu t/c 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deedy Delete, promotional article, non-notable. Protect from recreation. Offer a kind word of advice on this kind of thing to original author. Karwynn (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--66.189.171.62 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Dont Delete!

A message board created this month does not get an entry. Delete. DS 18:08, 26 July 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.