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. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StrategyWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability for websites - links and sources are to StrategyWiki alone, bar the two links to talk pages (talk pages!) on other wikiprojects that do not mention StrategyWiki at all (and would not be reliable sources anyway). This appears to be the second nomination (first is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategyWiki and based on the old deletion discussion points, it either hasn't changed, or wasn't deleted after the discussion closed). This could be a speedy since it's already been discussed in essentially the same format (and this time, salt the earth!). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete It was deleted properly, according to the log and recreated March 31, 2008, according to the history, so it appears it was created in good faith. Speedy doesn't apply. It has several references, but they all appear to fail wp:rs. Probably a nice site and all, just isn't notable yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete — The only reliable source I can find is this Joystiq article here. I'm afraid that's not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. It's a shame considering I have also contributed over there from time to time. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that reliability of Joystiq's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I've seen Kotaku is considered a reliable source/news site as well. There have been published advertisements for the site. Also has a decent alexa ranking. I can't vote as it's a conflict of interest, but I'd say 'weak keep'. -- Prod (Talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that reliability of Kotaku's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that could give a comprehensive coverage of the subject: subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete 0 Gnews hits. Web hits (looked through the first 10 pages or so) are not promising at all. The best it gets is a blurb on joystiq, which is not generally a RS. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I don't understand the point of this debate. This entry was submitted and it was rejected once. Issues brought up in the first discussion were considered and the entry was resubmitted, and it appeared that the issues were sufficiently addressed. Now it seems that we're debating the issue again under even more stringent guidelines. I understand that no site gets preferential treatment, but SW is certainly a partner wiki in good faith, and interlinking occurs between both sites substantially. Plotor (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]

The point is not that interwiki links shouldn't exist. The point is whether or not we should have an article on strategywiki. And we can't if strategywiki isn't covered in the press (basically). Protonk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hate to delete but it fails the policies/guidelines: Found a paper which cites it using scholars.google:[1], but it's only really a citation that it exists in the same manner as Wikipedia (as a wiki). --Izno (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm actually a little surprised that reliable third-party sources didn't turn up. But that a several different google searches revealed nothing about such an Internet-driven and recent topic should confirm that this just isn't notable yet. No prejudice towards re-creation once StrategyWiki becomes notable, and there is reliable third-party coverage to support this article. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.