Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape Wikia

Runescape Wikia

Runescape Wikia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wiki, for which I can find two only two passing mentions in reliable sources. The first is in a PC World story here, which was provided by the author to another editor with the remark, "Here's your frickun source. Good night and au revoir." The other is here, amounting to one sentence in the 728-page book Handbook of Research on Open Source Software. I'm sure this site is popular among the people who edit it, but WP:WEB requires that it have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works," have won a notable award, or be distributed through a medium with significant independent editorial oversight, none of which is true here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Each of the "sources" mention above contains only a brief mention in one sentence, and I too have searched and found no other mention at all (not even one sentence) in anything which could be regarded as a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: only passing mentions. Pcap ping 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage found for this Wiki. --Teancum (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Only passing mentions in the sources, no secondary sources in the article. Notability is fairly absent. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Runescape wiki really does not qualify as notable. There are really no sources avialable. I confused this with the actual game which already has an article on Wikipedia. That is why I added the "hang on" template. My mistake. The game itself apparently qualifies as notable. If I hadn't posted that "hang on" template we probably wouldn't be having this discussion - sorry. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• No worries, it might well have passed speedy anyway as at least being mentioned in a reliable source, and for the claim that Runescape Wiki is the #4 search term on Google (a howler, I know; I removed it). Better to at least have had the discussion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In response @ above - Just a clarification, I did not mean to say overall searches in the past, but rather the way Google treats its PageRanking optimization. It was the #4 most searched-for term on Google in the current time being. No need to be a nitpick. Also, I'm kind of confused right now. All of you have never even heard of RuneScape Wiki yet you openly criticise its lack of sources? Such digression is dissapointingly embarassing. What a new low we've hit - Rock bottom indeed. You also sound like you're proud by saying "I removed it." Do you treat others' work as merely a tool for your ambitions? I bet you think this is some sort of mediocre child's game you're playing right now. Do you count the days where your edit count slowly amasses one-by-one, living off the woes and disparagement of others so you can find your own blissful solace within your shroud of ignorance?

Ad hominem in situ ad libitum, suum cuique. Sic semper tyrannis, glory to death of wrongdoing.

— O, wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!

But in process of time, and in ages of ignorance, the clerk began to invade the power and assume the dignity of his master. The laws of writing were no longer founded on the practice of the author, but on the dictates of the critic. The clerk became the legislator, and those very peremptorily gave laws whose business it was, at first, only to transcribe them.

Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)