Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wajas

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, no secondary sources. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wajas

prod'd it which was removed - I cannot find any mentions of this in the sort of sources that we expect to find according to WP:RS, just various mirrors of the wikipedia article and various forum posts. Delete as NN. Fredrick day 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All things within this article can be confirmed with the FAQ section of wajas. I see no reason for it to be deleted, I myself am a member of the site and can find no immediate errors in any of the information provided.Aupa 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

so what? what that does prove? that this site exists? yes we know that. What policy based reason can you cite for keeping it? --Fredrick day 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As of now, the FAQ's section of Wajas is messed up and as a result is difficult to navigate. The goal of this article is to provide a more organized resource of information. It is also to help people who are interested in the website find out exactly what it entails, as it is more unique than most virtual pet sites out there.

This website is popular, though not yet internationally. It's not some little cult or clan site with a few members. About 25,000 accounts have been created, assuming if each person created a second account as well, which would not be counted toward the total.

No original research is here. This can all be verified. All of my information was obtained from the website itself and user-made walkthroughs. Later I will cite them when I get the chance. Also, this completely complies with NPOV. Opinions cannot be found anywhere.

Any other reasons why we should delete this? -- Hot Dog Wolf -- What's your beef? 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That it does not have any sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS and that "because the original site is a bit of mess so we want to put the instructional guide on wikipedia" is not a policy I am familar with? --Fredrick day 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Why can't we keep the article? I might be a little.. un-professional, but I don't see any reason why we can't keep it here. Some people might want to know what Wajas is exactly. Alot of people either Google it or check it on Wikipedia to see if it appears to be any good. And err.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the WP:RS page, it says "This page is a guideline, not a policy" or something along those lines. I'm pretty sure this is reliable. I personally also play the site, and all the information do match what I've learned so far, from reliable guides that have been published on the site itself and on fan sites. -- Anonymous

well I like this page, its been very helpful and its not like the page is a mess or anything. also its not like wikipedia has any reason to delete pages that only apply to a few people. if that were the case you could take this down and every foot long page on super heroes and comic books with it. -- Anonymous

WP:ILIKEIT. - anyone got a policy based reason for it to remain? --Fredrick day 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:WEB, Wiki is not a game guide/instruction manual (point 5), and notability ain't asserted with secondary sources ("All of my information was obtained from the website itself and user-made walkthroughs" – that's the problem) before referring to the primary. tomasz. 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is this? There are no secondary sources at all. Herostratus 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is really a nicely written article, and so one may wonder what harm it does to Wikipedia. I will try to explain to the creators of the article why many of us are voting delete here. Well, we need to draw the line somewhere, or we should allow nicely done entries on every website, or any online community. The document describing what Wikipedia is trying to do is the official policy called What Wikipedia is Not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an Internet Guide: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This is why the important criteria for keeping an article is that we need non-trivial coverage in intellectually independent sources. This typically means news coverage, or mention in books about internet phenomena, and so on. I hope this helps explain why we can't keep this otherwise very nice article, Merzul 21:39, 2 June 2007 (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.