Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneHQ

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 of the debate was delete. DS 23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a Fansite of Runescape, not particulary notable of its own article J.J.Sagnella 07:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete, fansites are seldom encyclopaedic. Sandstein 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alexa rank 4,064. Seems popular in the Runescape world, but not really meeting WP:WEB for me. -- Mithent 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just a web site. Elfguy 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:43Z

Whats the problem with it? Come on, a) what harm does it do by staying here? b) It is interesting to those who want to know about it, so just because you couldn't care less doesn't mean that it isn't important to some. c) What gives you the right to decide what articles are on here? It's a free encyclopedia... Viralmonkey 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I will address these succinctly without biting. a) As it has ended up on AfD, the operative question really should be "What good does it do to stay here?"; b) Interesting and important do not necessarily equal notable; c) A "free encyclopedia" does not equal a "free-for-all". --Kinu 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2: c) The democratic process of Wikipedia policies. If you don't like it, maybe moving to a less democratic website might be the thing for you? --Agamemnon2 07:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment3: Eh? You linked to "what wikipedia is not" and lo and behold, there is a heading, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Huzzah! Anyway, the article is only a stub so how can you form an opinion about whether it is worthwhile. Although it is a website, we made a point of not advertising it, we are trying to build some kind of history using evidence, it would be interesting and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralmonkey (talk • contribs)
    • Read on; it rationalizes that: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting." Hence why you're on this page, where people are discussing reasons for their opinions, and simply not saying keep or delete for a simple count at the end. --Kinu 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... despite Alexa ranking, seems more like gamecruft and/or WP:VSCA than an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a member...THAT'S what gives me the right to decide what articles are on here. Batman2005 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Free as in beer, not free as in lawless. (Please point me to a link for that quote....) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm agreeing with ViralMonkey here. There is no reason why this should be taken off because it is not hurting anyone. An encyclopedia is a database of knowledge. In order for it to be complete it must have an article about everything. This has never been achieved and won't be for a long time but if you take off this article you are just moving wikipedia farther from that goal. And just because this is a fansite doesn't mean it should be removed. Just go to the main page and do a search on "Fan Site" and 11 pages of matches will come up. --Eddie 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Above user's only contributions are to this AfD and its article. --Kinu 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does a user's number of contributions make their opinion any less credible? --DownStrike 07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a matter of credibility, but of bias. See WP:SOCK for an explanation. --Kinu 07:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Eddie truly believes that Wikipedia needs an article about EVERYTHiNG..then i'm going to start writing an article about my left shoe, because its about as notable as this artcile. Batman2005 15:56, 11 February 2006 (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.