Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wookieepedia (2nd nomination)

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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wookieepedia

Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment sorry, but I don't see how that outcome is relavent to Wookieepedia - they are rather unrelated.--Konst.able^Talk 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They are both Wikipedias, and WoWWiki was removed due to WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V, which this article also fails. Havok (T/C/c) 09:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain and comment I closed the WoWWiki AfD, but I said nothing about it setting a precedent for all other fan wikis, and in fact I did say that each one should be considered individually. As you very vocally wanted WoWWiki to be kept, I cannot help but wonder if you are just doing this because you weren't able to get what you wanted there (also your Lostpedia nomination, and your deletion "vote" WikiFur nomination).--Konst.able^Talk 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would think that you as an admin would know WP:AGF. Am I not allowed to change my mind since I voted keep on the WoWWiki AfD? I have voted keep on many articles on Wikipedia, I have also nominated articles for deletion and voted delete before. I have also "improved" my way of thinking since I started contributing to Wikipedia, my contributions are not as they where back then. Take my nomination as you see fit, but my reason for nominating them is valid in my eyes, if you don't see it that way, that's your prerogative and also the reason we are having this discussion. Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I think you're just trying to make a point here by using one AFD to nominate a bunch of other wikis for deletion, especially seeing as Lostpedia was speedy kept because you nominated the day after the original AFD closed. Hbdragon88 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wookieepedia is a much more notable wiki. In addition to being one of Wikia's most popular, extensive, and active wikis, it has been mentioned in multiple news sources. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are many articles already relating to Star Wars and it's characters. This particular article is nothing more than a fandom/nerd convention, and as such has no place on a respected encyclopedia/dictionary such as this! I would suggest the article has its own web page.

The Equaliser 11:17 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wookieepedia is notable. WoWWiki isn't. --JimmyTheWig 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Biased keep: Wookieepedia's been through one AFD with a "Speedy keep" result, and Lostpedia's recently been undeleted, so Wikipedia clearly allows articles on notable fansite wikis. Are the policies being applied arbitrarily and inconsistently? Maybe, but nominating pages for deletion because you're unhappy about a similar page being deleted probably isn't the best way to go about fixing the policy. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please assume good faith. I have given my reason for nominating this article, so you vote and discuss. Havok (T/C/c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize for assuming that was your motive: it was explicitly stated to be the motive by the last person to list Wookieepedia on AfD, which is why I jumped to conclusions. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I do understand that it can be seen as a act of "revenge", but in all honesty I still think a simple list of these Wiki's would suffice. Havok (T/C/c) 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it DOES meet WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V. I'm actually rather disappointed in Havok for nominating this. It becomes very, very hard to assume good faith when your reason for nominating this makes no sense whatsoever. "I deleted an article on a non-notable politician from Ghana who didn't meet WP standards, so I might as well do the same to George Washington!" --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment On your user page you wrote 'Claiming that something is not notable is in effect contradictory. If someone notes that something is actually there, it makes that thing notable. And as such Wikipedia:Notability is the silliest guideline Wikipedia has.'. So isn't using WP:NN a touch hypocritical?--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please everybody, discuss the issue, not the people. Though in this case, it's important to remember that the issue is merely this article, not the greater issue of which Wiki to keep. If you want to handle that, I suggest going to WP:WEB and working on a consensus there. FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wookieepedia is one of the largest wikipdia projects BS Guus 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wookieepedia is not a Wikipedia or Wikimedia project: it's hosted by Wikia. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wookiepedia definitely meet the WP:NN criteria. Been voted on before. Get over it.~ Brother William 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Uber Strong Keep For one, I use and look at Wookieepedia every day. I am using it to help write a book. Star Wars is now a part of culture, and has millions of followers all over the world, so why delete its Wiki? its rather acurate and true. plus, what harm could be in leaving it? Very Very Strong Keep.~MasterRogue 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wookiepedia won't be deleted by this proposal, merely its article on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if for no other reason than the bad faith nom of a user pushing a WP:POINT. I do not buy the sudden change in heart. Resolute 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Star Wars. Sorry, but it fails WP:WEB. Anomo 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not notable. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- SFH 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be pushing WP:POINT. StarNeptune 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per The Wookieepedian. If this site does not meet WP:WEB then it is our guidelines that are failing us, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 04:45, 4 November 2006
• Keep. I don't see how this fails WP:WEB. I've never used WP:POINT in a discussion before, but my good faith is really being stretched on this one. BryanG^(talk) 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per "I've had to explain tons of times that AfDs don't create strong precedents". The nomination fails to explain why WoWWiki's case is relevant in this case. From a cursory glance, Wookieepedia appears to satisfy WP:WEB with flying colours. I'm not calling this a bad faith nom or anything, just pointing out that "this one was kept/deleted too" is not a deletion/keeping reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'd vote keep, but as a Wookieepedia admin, I think my vote would be biased. Besides, it has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted anyway. - Sikon 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wookiepedia is an important resource for the Star Wars community, and the wiki size and popularity should indicate that it has high degree of notability. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Highly popular wiki, thats won awards in the past. --217.65.158.118 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep, seems fairly notable. -MrFizyx 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems fairly notable. We wouldn't delete Wikipedia's article now would we? Spawn Man 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wookieepedian, wwwwolf. MikeWazowski 14:51, 8 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.