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 redirect to WoWWiki. Marasmusine (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowpedia[edit]

Wowpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The new wiki has no established notability separate from WoWWiki. The available sources include one blog and links to the two wikis themselves, which is not nearly enough to establish notability. It also remains to be seen whether the majority of users make the switch or not. All of the useful content here is already in the WoWWiki article, so no merge is necessary. Powers ^T 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (to section), per the nomination. I've got a conflict of interest, however, as an admin of the new project. --Izno (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Does not currently have independent notability. I have notified the user who turned this from a redirect into an article. Reach Out to the Truth 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to [[WoWWiki], has no notability of its own. In future, it may replace WoWWiki, perhaps even in the near future, but for now its just not notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment for now. I'm an editor on the wowwiki page, I reverted the original move of wowwiki to wowpedia (for pretty much the same reasons as are being offered here for deletion) and I declined the speedy on wowpedia in favor of bringing it to AfD. I think the page ought to be redirected for now; however, we should be careful about using the result of this AfD as a cudgel. The likely outcome given the problems with wikia and the preeminence of Curse in the WoW fan site world is that the fork will eventually result in wowpedia becoming the resource we see wowwiki as today. If and when this does happen a page move may be appropriate (which wouldn't really be impacted by the AfD) or a new article may be appropriate (if we consider the scholarly research on wowwiki as justifying a standalone article for the old site). When that happens I don't want to see a lot of froth and vigor over deleting it as CSD G4 or straightjacketing our options because this AfD determined the article was better left a redirect. Protonk (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So noted. Consensus can change. Powers ^T 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now) – The Warcraft wiki was the subject of the articles cited here, because of its content and community, not its name. Both "WoWWiki" and "Wowpedia" have that content, and the users are split in an as yet unspecified ratio. I.E. both forks should have the same notability. For us to only have one article under either name, seems to me to be an attempt at predicting the outcome as to which will be the dominant resource in the future. If one of them withers, than that one should become a section in the article on the other.
  It should also be noted that I am a user/editor of Wikia in general, and Wowpedia, as well as Wikipedia. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject was the Wikia site; that's what all of the currently available third-party sources were about. There are now two wikis with the same content, but the new one has not yet gotten coverage. The new one may come to be dominant, but we have to wait for the sources to catch up. Powers ^T 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How much of the community has moved: —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. According to Wikia, there were just over 2000 active registered WoWWiki users before the fork.
  2. Since the fork, over 1870 users have registered Wowpedia accounts.
  3. According to Wikia, there are/were 22 listed WoWWiki admins. Of those, three are inactive, with no edits since before 2010. Of the 19 remaining, 13 have registered accounts at Wowpedia, with most explicitly moving to Wowpedia, and not just using both.
  4. So—while I cannot speak to use by anonymous readers—as best as I can determine, over two-thirds of the former WoWWiki community has transitioned to Wowpedia.
• Comment If the whole community has moved to Wowpedia and all that jazz, then they're still shouldn't be two articles anyway. If Wowpedia is the new WoWWiki then the WoWWiki article should be reworked to be about Wowpedia. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few general comments, from someone who sourced the wowwiki article. First, a lot of the scholarly research was on wowwiki as a source (the site itself) and a community. Some of that obviously applies to the new site, but some does not. Just as a large fork of the English wikipedia may be notable but may not be considered to be covered by sources mentioning the english wikipedia before the split. Second, a temporary redirect to a wowpedia section on the wowwiki article may be the best answer...for now. As time goes on and some reliable sources talk about the transition (especially sources that contextualize the reasons for moving/forking), we can move wowwiki to wowpedia or consider building a new article. The nice thing about redirection is that it leaves the old content in the history. A possible downside is that it increases confusion for readers who may expect to read about wowpedia and find themselves on an article about wowwiki. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Full disclosure, I am casual contributer to the WoWWiki/Wowpedia community and have contributed to both forks since the split. My comment: I was previously opposed to this page (see Talk:Wowpedia) as I felt it was predicting the future. However, the circumstances have changed a bit since my talk-page post. Assuming that MJBurrage's comments can be validated, we now have have a reasonable measure of the degree to which the editing community has moved. I would also add the evidence that comparing the activity feeds of both sites reveals that there is more edit activity at Wowpedia (though not by such a degree that I would describe WoWWiki as dead). However, when considering notability, I think that read-only activity must be strongly considered also. People who visit the site, but don't make edits, are the community at large that WoWWiki/Wowpedia provides a service to for which it became notable. I think that some measure of site visit activity should be considered. Also, if Wowpedia has truly replaced WoWWiki then it should be possible to verify this through sources. When I made my talk-page comment, this was not yet possible. The recent press release from Curse (which I believe is now mentioned in the article) helps, but I think editors wishing this page to remain (including myself) should support it with additional references. If we cannot find such references, then I will have to agree with those who wish to redirect this page to WoWWiki (for now). As this is fork is a recent event, and the situation is likely to continue changing over the next week, I think any decision made should be with the caveat "for now" as the future will be more clear once the dust settles. Ddcorkum (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - If they are basically the same thing, the main article should be expanded to include both. Wowpedia is not notable, WoWWiki is. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically what information needs to be merged? As I stated in the nomination, it appears that all of the useful information from this article is already in the WoWWiki article. Powers ^T 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what could be moved over. There just doesn't need to be two separate articles, especially when one is not notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You suggested a merge but don't know what should be merged? You specifically said "the main article should be expanded"; what information should be added? Powers ^T 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect - with the clear understanding that the article can be re-created once the new site builds notability under its own name. While WoWwiki has established notability, Wowpedia has not established that it has notability. This may ultimately change, but this article is premature - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not a vehicle to promote a new website, even if it is a fork of an existing notable community website. At this time, it appears that the bulk of the community has moved; but that simply suggests that WoWWiki is nearing the end of its notable existance - it does not automatically result in Wowpedia inheriting that notability. --- Barek (talk) - 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more sourced content now than when this discussion started, so if the article becomes a redirect, a merge would be required. As for notability, the project was the subject of the articles (not the name), and as the project is now at Wowpedia, it is notable under that name too.
    As for whether the version still called WoWWiki will remain an equally notable fork or wither, we should have that answer by the end of the year. A major expansion releases the first week in December, and how the two wiki's are edited in response will be the most telling. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you wrote would be accurate if this were a simple name change. It's not. Wowpedia is a fork of WoWWiki, not a rename. That means it's a new project, not the same project with a new name. Powers ^T 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the number of active users at pre-fork WoWWiki, and the number of admins and editors that moved to Wowpedia, it is more accurate to say that a notable project moved to a new name, leaving behind an archive at its old name. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WoWwiki until such time as it's independently notable. The fact that the community is moving to a new Wiki is not notable enough until it receives significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal[edit]

Warcraft Wiki

• If the pages are to be merged, a paged titled Warcraft wiki with redirects from both "WoWWiki" and "Wowpedia" might be best. I believe that if the pages are merged it should be under a generic name with a section on the pre-fork history followed by sections about the fork and the current status of each fork. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. For what its worth, as of today the number of accounts registered at Wowpedia since the fork has just passed the number of accounts active at WoWWiki prior to the fork. Since WoWWiki defines active, as any action in the last month, we wont really know how active post-fork WoWWiki is until sometime after November 20th. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (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.