Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resonance (Ragnarok Online Guild)

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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resonance (Ragnarok Online Guild)

Resonance (Ragnarok Online Guild) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Gamecruft. A Ragnarok Online guild that doesn't seem to need an encyclopedia article. You could make the argument that the article asserts notability, so it's not speediable, but no support for the claim is given. No secondary sources are cited. No evidence that this is of interest outside the gameworld. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. 71.173.241.47 blanked this AFD and removed the notice from the article shortly after its being posted. Esteffect (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's of no relevance outside of the game. Esteffect (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I object to this deletion. There is plenty of evidence given in the References section, as well as there are plenty more "irrelevant" game articles on this site than ours. Neomagus26 (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The references listed consist of: what is basically a log file, an unaccesable forum article, another forum on how to recruit into the guild, and yet another forum article discussing the guild. Internet forums aren't generally considered [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. eaolson (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think an article about a gaming guild really needs significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This article doesn't have that. --Pixelface (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete gameclan, the end. JuJube (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability, no secondary coverage, Wikipedia is not your web host. Advertise your guild elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If you're not Nihilum, you'd best try elsewhere. And even they don't have a page here. DarkAudit (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reaosn we have deleted dozens of other online gaming guilds wth no provable significance outside the minds of their members. Vanity cruft, get it gone. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete online game guilds/clans are simply never notable enough or verifiable enough for an encyclopedia article. In 5 years on Wikipedia I can't recall a single example of one being kept on AfD. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, Geocities is that way, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This page in accordance to Wiki's policy has nothing wrong with it, it has it's resoucres, as well as other "facts" with the topic. It was well made and changes, (if in someway they NEED to be changed) he/she might want to check their own knowledge about it first before deeming it otherwise. -- 64.229.207.174, on talk page, moved by Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Theres is no reason why 'some' guild playing on an illegal game server should be considered notable or have an article about themselfs. As a Ragnarok Online player for 7 years i can say that all of the notable things this guild claim to have done are no different than things that normally happen in due course for the game. DarkBahamut15 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; if you can't get an article in the newspaper, then your guild isn't going to fly on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, article creator has stated on talk page that he deleted the article (he actually blanked it and was reverted). I was tempted to delete this now as the only substantial editor requested its deletion, plus it has failed AFD anyway, but decided against it as I'm not sure that'd be in process. Esteffect (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (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.