Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild)
Source: 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. Courcelles 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragon (guild) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Wikipedia does not work to specifically discuss World of Warcraft guilds, as well as advertise them gratuitously and create a database for their players. Yes, Paragon has been accomplished, but the real-world bearings that they hold have absolutely no profound influence or sub-culture that deserves its own article. Furthermore, there is next to no information on the article. I also find it disconcerting that those who would promote the guild would include them in the Warcraft infobox. All of this must be remedied immediately. DarthBotto talk•cont 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above Little Professor (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There was no template on the top of the article notifying interested editors that an AfD was in progress. I have just fixed this, so the debate should not be closed until 168 hours after the following timestamp.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't the place to list every WoW guild. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Note that this page has already been included in the World of Warcraft template. Ezhuks (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not anymore. :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The world champion e-sports team for the world's most popular MMORPG sounds notable. Article should be cleaned up of any unneedeed promotion, but it alone is not grounds for deletion; rather a chance should be given to refactor the article. Also, the nominator did not notify the article's creator, which I found particularly odd. --hydrox (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This really, really must be some very bad joke... I mean seriously? The Paragon website is notable enough by itself, since it's one of the most visited .fi -sites in the world. I really don't understand what's going on here. --Pek (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. So if there are news sources or other reliable 3rd party sources that have covered the guild the article would stay. Given the language issue I can't easily find anything. Hobit (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 20 sources at finnish version of the article (link to sources), most of them are on finnish language, which however in my opinion should not effect on the notability. --Pek (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, someone told me (don't remember who), that even 1 good source should be fine, the current article has two sources, which another of them is 100% 3rd party source (WoW-lehti, which is a only World of Warcraft -themed magazine in Finland and which also have a article of it's own in fi-Wikipedia: link to article). I also have two real magazines and both of them talk about Paragon, I can post more info about that if needed. --Pek (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then go ahead and post them. But what I am reading right now is a total of three sentences, two of which are sourced by WoW fan sites, a "see also" sub-section that simply says "Ensidia", (which doesn't have an article), a very sketchy infobox used for an organization that compliments a WoWpedia infobox and a guild roster that lists character names. If there is something that would establish its notability beyond a fan page, then by all means, update the page. I do, however, believe that hosting Wikipedia pages for guilds is not terribly appropriate. Nihilum has a page, but it is only a re-direct page for a major eSports organization that owns the brand. This isn't a bad joke, aside from a page that looks like it was copied from a deleted page on the Warcraft Encyclopedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that the page isn't in very good "situation", but that doens't have anything to do with the notability argument, in which i mean, that the article should not be delited just because it has bad info or it's not done well. To add that, there are other articles which are in even worse condition. And about Ensidia, it should also be enough notable to get in to Wikipedia and I'm working on it next after we get this argue to final. --Pek (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then go ahead and post them. But what I am reading right now is a total of three sentences, two of which are sourced by WoW fan sites, a "see also" sub-section that simply says "Ensidia", (which doesn't have an article), a very sketchy infobox used for an organization that compliments a WoWpedia infobox and a guild roster that lists character names. If there is something that would establish its notability beyond a fan page, then by all means, update the page. I do, however, believe that hosting Wikipedia pages for guilds is not terribly appropriate. Nihilum has a page, but it is only a re-direct page for a major eSports organization that owns the brand. This isn't a bad joke, aside from a page that looks like it was copied from a deleted page on the Warcraft Encyclopedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, someone told me (don't remember who), that even 1 good source should be fine, the current article has two sources, which another of them is 100% 3rd party source (WoW-lehti, which is a only World of Warcraft -themed magazine in Finland and which also have a article of it's own in fi-Wikipedia: link to article). I also have two real magazines and both of them talk about Paragon, I can post more info about that if needed. --Pek (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 20 sources at finnish version of the article (link to sources), most of them are on finnish language, which however in my opinion should not effect on the notability. --Pek (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. So if there are news sources or other reliable 3rd party sources that have covered the guild the article would stay. Given the language issue I can't easily find anything. Hobit (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources do seem to exist per Pek. It would be nice if they got added to the article though. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once you remove raiding history and roster (neither of those sections being
scientificencyclopedic), the article is reduced to merely three sentences ("best guild", "formed from two guilds" and "must speak Finnish"). Unless there is more information than that stub, the page does not provide useful, encyclopedic information. --Habap (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is in better shape now, but I still don't think it's notable. --Habap (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As much as I love WoW, I cannot think of ANY guild, (save for Leeroy Jenkins' "PALS FOR LIFE",) that would garner any form of notability that someone outside of WoW would recognize. Stuff like this belongs on WoWWiki. -- RoninBK T C 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, "Leeroy Jenkins" has 558 000 hits in Google, "Paragon WoW" or/and "Paragon World of Warcraft" has 2,3 million hits, so yeah, lets just keep Leeroy Jenkins and delete Paragon... --Pek (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GHits are not a reliable indicator of notability, a search term that includes "World of Warcraft" will obviously return more hits than one that does not. See WP:GOOGLETEST -- RoninBK T C 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added "World of Warcraft" to that because there are other things called Paragon, not because it would get more hits, in fact, only Paragon gets more hits then "Paragon World of Warcraft". But okay, since Google hits don't count I would like however to point out (this is a quite different thing then hits) that in Google.fi when you type "Paragon" the first page which appears is Paragon guilds website, doesn't that mean that the site has lots of traffic? And what about YouTube videos/hits, are they also not valuable? --Pek (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'v found some evidence: Oindex.fi, is a website which lists the most popular (highest traffic) Finnish websites and as you can see from the list Paragon.fi 39th website on the list, which is pretty high. --Pek (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of that is valuable at all in making your case. Website traffic is not a condition of notability. It can suggest that there is a possibility that sources exist, but that's about it. It can't prove that all those hits are actually talking about the Paragon guild itself. Or even if they are, that they're not listings on sites like the Armory or other WoW-specific blogs and websites. Now that news report you linked below can be a quality source, and if you find more like that and edit them into the article you might have a shot at keeping this article. -- RoninBK T C 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well here for example Paragon is interviewed by Finnish radio channel called YleX. I'm sorry but the radio show and the text is all on Finnish language. --Pek (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of that is valuable at all in making your case. Website traffic is not a condition of notability. It can suggest that there is a possibility that sources exist, but that's about it. It can't prove that all those hits are actually talking about the Paragon guild itself. Or even if they are, that they're not listings on sites like the Armory or other WoW-specific blogs and websites. Now that news report you linked below can be a quality source, and if you find more like that and edit them into the article you might have a shot at keeping this article. -- RoninBK T C 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'v found some evidence: Oindex.fi, is a website which lists the most popular (highest traffic) Finnish websites and as you can see from the list Paragon.fi 39th website on the list, which is pretty high. --Pek (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added "World of Warcraft" to that because there are other things called Paragon, not because it would get more hits, in fact, only Paragon gets more hits then "Paragon World of Warcraft". But okay, since Google hits don't count I would like however to point out (this is a quite different thing then hits) that in Google.fi when you type "Paragon" the first page which appears is Paragon guilds website, doesn't that mean that the site has lots of traffic? And what about YouTube videos/hits, are they also not valuable? --Pek (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GHits are not a reliable indicator of notability, a search term that includes "World of Warcraft" will obviously return more hits than one that does not. See WP:GOOGLETEST -- RoninBK T C 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also to add: Finnish media (not just "World of Warcraft media") knows Paragon quite well, especially in gaming communities. Here is Paragon in news for example. --Pek (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put that here, put it into the article where you might have a better chance of saving the article! Sheesh! -- RoninBK T C 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of the AfD is the topic, not the article as it exists. "Sheesh". Hobit (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely true. The topic of the AfD is that the article fails the WP:GNG, which requires that there be multiple non trivial sources in the article. -- RoninBK T C 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEL says a reason for deletion is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". So this is about the subject, not the current state of the article. In other words, the potential. If we were going to delete anything without sources, we could assign a bot to the task. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely true. The topic of the AfD is that the article fails the WP:GNG, which requires that there be multiple non trivial sources in the article. -- RoninBK T C 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of the AfD is the topic, not the article as it exists. "Sheesh". Hobit (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put that here, put it into the article where you might have a better chance of saving the article! Sheesh! -- RoninBK T C 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, "Leeroy Jenkins" has 558 000 hits in Google, "Paragon WoW" or/and "Paragon World of Warcraft" has 2,3 million hits, so yeah, lets just keep Leeroy Jenkins and delete Paragon... --Pek (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, plain and simple. --Teancum (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not true, tell me what part (do you think) fails there? I don't see any to be honest. --Pek (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not-notable guild. Nakon 18:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By non-notable do you mean per WP:N? The Finish sources seem to meet that requirement. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.