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. There definitely isn't a consensus to delete, and the independent IGN coverage would seem to show notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avlis[edit]

Does not, as far as I can tell, meet the notability criteria for web content, i.e. it meets none of these:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

I know that Avlis is notable within the NWN-community, but this is a normal Wikipedia, not NWN-wiki. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally put this up for WP:PROD, but that was removed. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not going to make many big arguments about this. Basically, I'm probably the only one on Wikipedia who has played this game, and I remember it being covered in reliable sources when I did so. For example, it has been on the frontpage of Bioware's site a couple of times, which is reliable (bioware's editorial standard) and independent (not connected to Avlis). These links are inside the article. User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... (Finger raised and about to say something.) I must immediately object to WP:WEB, because Avlis isn't a web site as such. Anyway, I'm not so sure what to do now: I know Avlis has gotten some coverage; Bioware and NWVault/IGN coverage is pretty serious. I'd be inclined to say Keep now, but I don't know if NWN Persistent Worlds are as such notable enough for articles, especially if we have a perfectly working NWN wiki in existence; if we had a "List of Neverwinter Nights Persistent Worlds" (limited strictly to PWs that have actually been featured in notable websites or magazines), this would be an instant trimming Merge material, along with the rest of them. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the Web notability page states, Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. So this qualifies as Web... -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm a bit hesitant to apply it, still. Among other things, NWN itself isn't purely web-distributed... and using WP:WEB for clearly non-website content should be used carefully, or otherwise, you could apply WP:WEB at whim on any "content" product that's sold through Internet alone. But that is beside the point - I still maintain that Avlis satisfies the general notability guideline (#1 above) due to independent web coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are a few pages like this. I have one would it make more sense to add them into a CoPaP article? As a world elader of CoPaP myself I know there are several currently worlds and several in the works. CoPaP has been listed just as many times if not more then Avlis on bioware and such. Terryrayc (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, I'm not sure about that. CoPaP itself, while admirable, has received less coverage than Avlis I believe. Oh, and hi :) User:Krator (t c) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, I'm just thinking of ways to make the articles notable enough. I'm just not sure they stand on their own. Though I know Avlis might be. Seeing how they have a company or 2 based around it. They've been cited on several websites and they are in the process of publishing source books, they probably good enough. Terryrayc (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find one source on this in Google News, Books or Scholar. There is a company involved in nuclear weapons that gets all the hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Avlis, and the projects that have come out of it, such as NWNx, are major components of the NWN community. Not only has Avlis received a BioWare Wednesday entry, but so have the Neverwinter Nights Extender and the Confederation of Planes and Planets, two closely related projects. Avlis is also mentioned repeatedly on the NWN Vault - not going to link them all; search for it. Avlis was responsible for the development of a persistence system without which many other persistent worlds would not even exist. If Neverwinter Nights is notable, then Avlis should be notable. Zebranky (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— Zebranky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'll point out first to the Bioware Wednesday mentions (June 2, 2004), mention of course that it was originally the PW that NWN-eXtender was written for, and the Confederation of Planes and Planets mention/interview dated September 8, 2004. there's also the Hall of Fame inclusion (which I grant you isn't all that hard to get) at the NWVault. Second, I'm not entirely sure Avlis fits entirely as a "web" phenomenon, in that we do have a set of community based world-wide meets in diverse locations ranging from the midwestern US to western Europe to Tokyo. Third, we had a publishing contract with Sylvan publishing for an actual published Avlis Campaign Setting sourcebook (which unfortunately went away with the loss of the publisher but eh) Final point: D&D Living Campaigns are also placed as an entire separate category and have their own individual entries, even those that are not RPGA sponsored. Given the size and scope of Avlis, and what is essentially a living campaign setting, it seems strange to delist it on notability purposes while retaining those. NobAkimoto — NobAkimoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep Avlis is not just listed in web publications and online articles. Avlis was featured in a full magazine spread for a printed publication in Greece called "The Strange" back in December 2003. Therefore, there are published sources independent of the internet that can be referenced on this. Orleron —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC) — Orleron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep For the reasons outlined above by Orleron, Nob and Zebranky, Avlis should rightfully remain where it is. MadKitty (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— MadKitty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I think things like Avlis are beyond the scope of WP:WEB. That said, this campaign setting has generated a decent amount of non-trivial, third-party attention and therefore meets the general notability requirements. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:39, 6 July 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.