Forum:CT:"Notable" fansites

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:"Notable" fansites


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no objections: should create Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects as proposed policy based on this discussion. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Major and Minor Fansites has long since stalled. In the meantime, various fansites, message boards, and online RPG groups have had articles created. These articles usually end up on WP:VFD, and usually get deleted for not being particularly notable.

I'm not sure what constitutes a notable fansite, but I've got some ideas about what isn't. Anyone else care to add to my list, or tell me that I'm out to lunch on this one? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

Longevity

  • A notable fansite should have been in operation for a fairly long time: would a year be sufficient? Or is it too long?—Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say even more than a year, if we're talking "notable" sites. Maybe there'd be some leeway if it's a very popular site even after a short time. There's just too much website turnover. There'd be a lot of pages to delete. But I'm only talking about the notable sites. Just a list of regular sites can be edited more often. --JMM 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Domain name

  • Most notable fansites have their own domain: but this is not really a guarantee of notability, since domain names are cheap enough that people without any real content to put up could buy one. I also note that The Star Wars Fanboy Association, a fairly notable site, shares its domain with a G.I. Joe comics page operated by the same webmaster. Similarly, SWTC and Timetales are part of TheForce.Net, and CUSWE only recently moved (back?) to its own domain. So I don't think we should worry about this. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As the above noted webmaster, I agree. Whether or not a site is notable should be based on its content and popularity, and not on a domain name. --JMM 00:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Message boards

  • Due to the many small message boards out there, I suspect that very few of them are notable. Unless they're part of a fansite which contains susbstantial content other than the message board, or notable Star Wars people have posted there, let's just delete them on sight. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging with other articles

  • A blog kept by an author, a message board run by a company, or something similar, would best be left as an external link on the author or company's article. The various features on StarWars.com, or the really big fansites like TFN, are exceptions to this rule. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of articles

  • Likewise, almost every fansite that's worth an article is only worth one article. We don't need articles on every person, group, feature, and in-joke associated with sites of only moderate notability. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaming sites

  • A "guild" of online gamers is almost never notable enough for an article. A site about a video game or an RPG might be, however. Some video game mods might also be notable enough for articles, like the one on the group resurrecting the lost KOTOR 2 ending. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to put minor sites?

  • List of fan sites can probably list a lot of the sites which don't fit these criteria, though some sites aren't even notable enough to put on that list. For instance, if someone linked to their blog where they briefly mention Star Wars maybe two or three times a year, that link should be removed. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

  • I don't see any problems with the criteria, so you do have my support. I'd like to add (though it is most likely implied) that a notable fansite is informative, since external links (e.g. fansites) serve as further reading. —Mirlen 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would love to see this made into official policy.–SentryTalk 02:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's really not enough of a proposal to count as policy: most of it is kind of vague...—Silly Dan (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my comment was rather random… What I meant was that it would be nice to develop the content of this page into a set of guidelines that we could use to help us determine what is and is not a notable fansite. IMHO, our current practice of VFDing almost every new fansite article could be improved upon.–SentryTalk 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Hear, hear. :) —Mirlen 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
            • How does the below sound as a first draft? It's pretty qualitative, but to some extent judging notability is going to be a matter of common sense. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree with all of the criteria, including the added part about user submission. We do want to be fair as long as we show the rules that have to be passed. It may subsequently promote growth in the SW fanbase and overall improve fandom. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines, draft one

If an article on a fansite (or, for that matter, any fan club, fan project, or fan...whatever) is not to be speedily deleted, the article must pass the following guidelines:

  1. Content: A fansite must have substantial content. A fan project must be non-trivial (i.e. a completed fan film, a completed video game mod, etc.)
    If the Wookieepedia article is almost as long as the text on the site, this is a bad sign.
  2. Longevity: A fansite or fan group should have been in operation for at least six consecutive months.
    The fansite does not need to have spent six months at the same URL.
    This guideline could be ignored for subjects that pass the first criteria by a substantial margin, such as fan films which were completed in less than six months.
  3. Notability: A fan project which has received at least national coverage in mainstream media can have its article kept, even if it fails to pass the first criteria.
    Another Hope was a short-lived phenomenon, but it made it to National Public Radio.
  4. Domain name: having a domain name is not proof of notability, and a fansite which shares its domain with other sites may still be notable.
  5. Message boards: Due to the ease of setting up message boards, and the multitude of message boards with very few members, a message board must have more than 100 active users to be notable.
    Is that a good number? Is it a good number for real-world fan clubs? MMORPG "guilds"?
  6. Number of articles: Fansites and other fan projects get one and only one article. If an article on a fansite can be merged with another article, it probably should.
    For instance, an author or notable fan's personal blogs could simply be discussed in a section of her article or listed in external links. Club Jade wouldn't go in the Dark Spork article, because it's more than just her personal blog (it's also a small fan club, a fanfic archive, etc.) Her SW.com blog, though, would be kept as an external link.
    Websites as big as TheForce.Net can have more than one article: not so much because they are more important, but because its forums and some of the projects it hosts would be obviously notable even if hosted on their own website.
  7. List of fan sites is a place for anything that doesn't qualify for a full article, but does qualify as a genuine fan site.
  8. These are all guidelines: I'm sure something will obviously be worth an article despite failing one of these criteria.
  9. Anything else? —Silly Dan (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks great so far, but in the content section, we may want to mention that new sites that are heavily under construction (ie. sites that have a number of dead-end links) and any site that has not been updated within the last six months should not generally be considered for article creation.
      On another note, we may want to consider creating a fan site submission page where we can vote on the notability of submitted fan sites based on the criteria above. Several users have argued that our current fan site policy may alienate us from the general Star Wars fan base, and while I do not necessarily agree, I think it would be fair to allow site administrators to at least submit their site for consideration. The options available could be:
      1. Create an article for the fan site.
      2. List the site on the List of fan sites.
      3. Make no mention of the site. –SentryTalk 03:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.