Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowhead (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wowhead

Non-notable specialty software and/or website. Its three external sources appear to be blogs, hence not reliable sources. Compare also the previous AfD, which was closed as "delete", at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowhead. Sandstein 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Possible Speedy) certainly not notable. Fails WP:WEB rather strongly, and looks to be a recreation of a previously deleted article. (If there was some improvement since the last time, it's not enough) Bfigura ^(talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Wowhead is certainly a well known site among World of Warcraft players (I use it myself), although so are many other WoW specific websites that aren't notable. Many WoW interface addons also use Wowhead's data, an example being Auctioneer.. I found a couple of mentions through Google News, namely here and here, but little else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingsol (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Change to keep following rewrite Has some news hits. Although Allakhazam is indexed in google news (lol). May have some notoriety among wow websites because it was purchased by IGE (a gold-selling firm). Gets one book hit in english that constitutes some coverage (I'm excluding the other three that pick up the search term). Scholar hits are a no-go because google thinks I mean "wow head". Protonk (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Rewritten. Non-RS removed. Spammy sections cut out. Some reliable sources added. Odds are this will be a permastub but as written I think it meets the inclusion guidelines. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and rework carried out by Protonk in order to meet WP:N and WP:V. Gazi moff 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:WEB. The sources kindly added by Protonk only establish the existence of the site, and are trivial as they only provide brief summary of the nature of the site's content. What this article fails to provide is detail on the website's achievements, impact or historical significance, if it has any. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - after reviewing the sources, I would argue that the website passes criterion 1 of WP:WEB. I would additionally argue that they are non-trivial sources as defined by criterion 1. Many thanks, Gazi moff 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only (possibly) reliable source currently cited is no. 1, "Hacking World of Warcraft." The online sources are press releases and such. That's not coverage by multiple reliable sources, and probably not substantial coverage either. What does the book "Hacking World of Warcraft" actually say about the software? Sandstein 13:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text is web available. You can get to it from my first comment above. As for the others being press releases--meh. Edge and Gamasutra are reliable sources. TUAW is as well (As a subsidiary of AOL/Weblogs inc). Like I said above, this will never expand beyond a stub, but it doesn't need to. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources. As Protonk said, this isn't necessarily a massively important site, but it warrants at least a stub. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:56, 24 December 2008 (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.