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. A Train ^{take the} 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarCry (website)[edit]

WarCry (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

It's almost a year since this was last put up for AfD and there are still no independent references or signs of fulfilling WP:WEB. Marasmusine 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The alexa ranking of 11,000 quoted in the first AFD isn't anything special. Couldn't find any independent sources myself. If someone did find some decent sources to write an article from then maybe I'd reconsider. Recury 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. It looks like a blog with no comments, suggesting it isn't very popular. Article doesn't give us any way to verify notability, so failing that, delete. — brighterorange (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. CyberAnth 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfortunately, the article does not contain any verified claims of notability which would comply with WP:WEB. --Alan Au 06:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's better now that sources have been added along with some support for notability. However, being cited by less-notable venues doesn't really add a lot to the article. Would change to "weak keep" if better (i.e. more notable) references were provided. WarCry is indeed a moderately well-known gaming site. The main issue for me here is whether it's notable enough for an article, as determined by overall impact on the broader gaming community. --Alan Au 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Added some IGN and GameSpot references, as well as some acknowledgements by game developers for their Editor's Choice Awards. Hope that's enough. Shrumster 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify - 1.5M Ghits, and this is a rather well-known network of fansites in the computer gaming space. Based on the comments from a couple of the commenters above, I have to assume that some who voted delete are simply unfamiliar with the most popular sites in computer gaming. WarCry is rather venerable and while this article could be improved (and I would advocate stubification) I really can't imagine deleting it. Tarinth 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to sort of prove its popularity with some independent references. And only a small percentage of those 1.5M google hits actually refer to this fan site. Marasmusine 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above statement is an inaccurate assumption. A quick statistical sampling of the top four pages of google for "warcry" turn up links that are 100% related to the site. The top four pages of google! While I'm comfortable admitting that some percentage of the 1.5M links are unrelated, I don't think that the percentage is "small" (whatever that means). Given that none of the core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV are violated with this article, it seems obvious that it should stay as a matter of common sense. Tarinth 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Google News uses it as a news source. This on its own doesn't prove notability, but they do have their own exclusive interviews with various MMO studios. These are linked to from stories at IGN such as [1], so I'm assuming they're a trusted news source for the MMO community. - hahnchen 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the link, I added some of the IGN links and a short blurb saying how WCN is referenced by major gaming sites. Shrumster 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems like a pretty significant site, like IGN & Stratics. I added a couple of references to the article, mostly about other websites utilizing its (WarCry) as sources and the like. Also, it;s significant enough that they've been officially recognized (and somewhat partnerized) by at least one of the games they're covering (Lineage II - I added a reference to that too). And I also stubified it so that it gets more attention and hopefully gets expanded in the future by someone who knows more about the company's history. Shrumster 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant content (unlike Simtropolis), seems like a blog, forums pretty much empty except for Off-Topic. TheListUpdater 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a purely subjective observation that has nothing to do with either notability, or any of the policies pertaining to whether it should be included. It also demonstrates that this voter has only looked at the surface-level of the site: in addition, it is comprised of a large number of game-specific sites that are part of its network, each of which has its own additional content. Tarinth 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here's a summary so far of the major links I've added to the article per WP:WEB - #1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.. These are the best sources so far: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I referenced these as links that refer to the website itself, or consider it significantly notable enough as to source it for news/interviews/etc. These should demonstrate notability of the WCN. Shrumster 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's looking much, much better. I wouldn't say that links 4 and 5 there have WarCry as the subject but I'm happy to change my opinion to keep. Marasmusine 09:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd advise you to look at the article first. There already are a number of independent sources, and the site passes WP:WEB#3 by being reprinted/relinked even by other sites that it's supposed to be in competition with. Shrumster 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh, it's also been pointed out to me that the article now passes WP:WEB#1 with the new references added. Shrumster 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm laughing my ass off at these "reliable" sources. Just removed one which was a from a GameSpot forum, but was linked in such a way to look like it was a news link. --- RockMFR 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, this article is built on a foundation of sand. These references are laughable. --- RockMFR 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's hard to assume good faith considering the tone of your statements. Some of the links you removed are significant to the article. The GameSpot one in particular supported this statement "gaming websites such as IGN, GameZone and GameSpot reference articles and interviews done by the WarCry network." Some of the statements you removed were describing the context in which the references were used. Still, including your alterations, the article does show the notability of the subject there of. Shrumster 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. BTW, why edit the article and remove links/statements if you're going to vote delete anyway? While I'm assuming good faith, it's hard to do so when someone who votes delete makes alterations to the article that might be construed as weakening the article's significance. Shrumster 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the GameZone link. I re-added it, this time pointing towards the proper page, and not to the print site. Shrumster 09:30, 30 January 2007 (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.