Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ensidia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ensidia (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)
Fails WP:GNG Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ensidia is probably the most known World of Warcraft guild in the world, which in mine opinion makes it notable. --Pekpekpek (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete - No assertion of notability through published, reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG. If they were notable, they'd also be known outside of Warcraft. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. --Teancum (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are joking right? There are millions of small communities what people don't know globally and what aren't told at school. So you are saying here that every community in Wikipedia is so notable that it is known around the world and are considered as self-evidence? Also I would like to add, that there are probably million articles in en-Wiki which aren't referenced or sourced but no one has deleted them, why is that? --Pekpekpek (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For your first point, the fact is Wikipedia has guidelines. Please read up on WP:Notability, WP:General notability guideline and WP:Reliable sources. As for the other half of your statement, feel free to nominate any other article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet the guidelines I just pointed out - however saying other stuff exists on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. This discussion is for this article, not others. --Teancum (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, what shall I do then that people will not delete the articles I'v made (they already did delete 2 of them, even when they did have sources)? --Pekpekpek (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For your first point, the fact is Wikipedia has guidelines. Please read up on WP:Notability, WP:General notability guideline and WP:Reliable sources. As for the other half of your statement, feel free to nominate any other article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet the guidelines I just pointed out - however saying other stuff exists on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. This discussion is for this article, not others. --Teancum (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - best source I could find was buffed.de Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 16 September 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.