Forum:TC:The Infinite Empire (roleplaying site)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:The Infinite Empire (roleplaying site)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Infinite Empire (roleplaying site) (talk - history - links - logs)

There seems to be some debate from time to time over what constitutes an article meeting the notability clause, so, rather than deleting this newly-created article outright and suffering the fallout, I thought we could make an example of this one, as it were, to reinforce what is already an official policy on this site.

This roleplaying site, which is really just a message board, has, as I understand it, roughly around 100 members, though rarely it seems will it ever have more than 20 people posting messages at one time. It was a Facebook group that just got their own website a month ago. That in itself is enough for me to declare "non-notable," but I'd like us to focus on the number of "members" this site claims to have. They once had upwards of 200 people, the article claims.

I say, so what? What in and of itself makes a site like this notable? It might have 100 individuals in a Star Wars online community of thousands or more claiming membership. I'm just afraid allowing articles like this is little more than glorified spam to attract traffic to their site.

Feel free to discuss below, since I know I for one take a very hard-liner approach to fan sites. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. C. S. D. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Culator. And apply to any similar ones too. Green Tentacle (Talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Communication Service for the Deaf? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Gray Jedi 00:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. Percolator. Graestan(Talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Grunny (Talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Graestan. Can we also CSD The Gungan Council? Mauser 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. Keep 'em coming. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. Geez. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. JMAS Hey, it's me! 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    We usually let these go for at least a week, if there's any grounds for debate at all. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  14. Doesn't seem to pass the notability guidelines. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  15. I don't see how "active membership" of a substantial amount of people can truly be proved on even the facebook group page, and certainly not on the site itself. And the number of users is really the main qualifier of notability for RPGs. The other notability guidelines are more of disqualifiers in RPG instances, so meeting them (though I'd argue that it doesn't meet any of them) does not actually help its case. I also think Toprawa sums it all up with the consideration below. Wildyoda 06:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  16. IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  17. Per Culator and Toprawa. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Oglam Paramount 17:20, 10 March 2009 (PST)
  2. And no it isn't because I'm an admin there. NayayenOld Republic military symbolTalk 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Other roleplaying sites have pages dedicated to them. Such as JvS and The Gungan Council. Why allow some and not others? -Oglam Paramount

  • See WP:ATA#What about article x?. Star Wars Games Wiki may be a better place for this article. -LtNOWIS 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out, we will destroy them too. Mauser 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Longevity: A fan group, project, or website should have been in operation for at least six consecutive months. A website does not need to have spent six months at the same URL." As stated in the article it has been in operation since 2006-2007, with elements going back to 2003
    • "This roleplaying site, which is really just a message board, has, as I understand it" Incorrect. A message board is the form by which this game takes place. Please see an example of roleplaying done on the site before passing judgment. -Oglam Paramount
      • This isn't about the quality of the roleplaying, it's about the notability of your group. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I was not referring to the quality either. I was referring to individuals creating a perception of the site simply by looking at the URL. -Oglam Paramount

This site does meet Wookieepedia's notability guidelines that were listed above.

  • Content: Must have substantial content. A forum based RPG with 3 years worth of content contributed by over 200 members. Also the first multi-group RPG to exist on Facebook. Check.
  • Longevity: Must be in existence for over 6 months. 3+ years, check.
  • Media Coverage: No "mainstream" media persay, but recognized by several Roleplaying communities as well as Facebook developers. Semi-check.
  • Domain Name: Not proof of notability. Simply that it was Facebook based and is now located on proboards, does not invalidate it. Check.
  • Message Boards: Must have over 100 members. Check.
  • Number of Articles: Must be substantial. 21 current planets, over 70 former Facebook groups. Check.
  • Webmasters: N/A

-Oglam Paramount 12:45 (PST) 11, March 2009

    • A question on the "number of users" criteria: you say you have over 100 members, but your message board lists only 65 total members. There are more people on your facebook group: are a lot of these people former active members? —Silly Dan (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, if the notability clause is the problem then let's go through point by point.
  1. Content: The Proboards site (only ~2 months old) already has at least 1000 in-character (IC) posts and that isn't incuding the thousands we made on the Facebook site. Just looking at the old "medbay" topic in the Jedi Enclave group (albeit closed) on FB there were at least 2000 posts. That's only one location on 1 of 70 groups.
  2. Longevity: In the Coruscant group on FB the oldest topic is June 2007.
  3. Media Coverage: Okay, we haven't had any national media coverage admittedly.
  4. Domain name: Given 1 & 2 we don't need (and wouldn't anyway) to use some link between the URL and Infinite Empire.
  5. Message boards: The old 'hub' Facebook group had over 300 members at a point but only now has ~230. The new PB site has 65.
  6. & 7. N/A

Look at those links I have provided (there may be better examples somewhere on the old FB one) I'm not supporting this because I'm an admin of it but because this is notable enough for an article. (NB: A Google search for infinite empire rp puts a direct link to the PB site 3rd on the list) NayayenOld Republic military symbolTalk 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    • (SillyDan), yes, at least 40 of those 65 on the Proboards site are active former players. The registry for separate players reached a total of 142 players not characters on the Facebook site. Is the fact that our move to PB has caused a slight dip in members a problem? NayayenOld Republic military symbolTalk 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, yes: if a lot of the players on the former site haven't migrated, it makes it look to me like they're no longer active. The guidelines say 100 or more active users, not 100 or more total users over the entire history of the group. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, so should we just re-post this article in a few weeks when the 100th person joins back up? It doesn't seem like arguing this point is worth the battle for you if the it is only going go up a few weeks later anyways. -Oglam Paramount 21:42 (PST) 12, March 2009
          • I might politely direct you to WP:POINT and also request you consider whether "you guys" are creating this article for the benefit of Wookieepedia or for the benefit of your own ends. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)