485:) 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.
342:
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.
462:
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.
372:(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.
561:- 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 - Knowledge (XXG) 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
461:
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
341:
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
681:
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
383:
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.
582:
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
585:
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.
198:. 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
671:
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.
608:
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.
163:
424:. 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.
481:- 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
119:
308:
515:
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
262:
157:
250:
541:
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?
427:
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.
595:
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
630:
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
327:, 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.
17:
502:- If they are basically the same thing, the main article should be expanded to include both. Wowpedia is not notable, WoWWiki is.
528:
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.
315:
294:
237:
280:
565:
is nearing the end of its notable existance - it does not automatically result in
Wowpedia inheriting that notability. ---
236:
Does not currently have independent notability. I have notified the user who turned this from a redirect into an article.
92:
87:
701:
178:
36:
96:
145:
79:
374:
It should also be noted that I am a user/editor of Wikia in general, and
Wowpedia, as well as Knowledge (XXG). —
268:
256:
700:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
571:
139:
452:
332:
57:
135:
421:
686:
676:
650:
613:
603:
590:
577:
545:
536:
523:
510:
494:
486:
471:
456:
401:
388:
378:
360:
351:
336:
318:
297:
240:
228:
206:
171:
61:
490:
435:
If the whole community has moved to
Wowpedia and all that jazz, then they're still shouldn't be
185:
124:
646:
566:
467:
347:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
448:
328:
53:
216:
635:
683:
673:
610:
587:
398:
375:
224:
631:
274:
151:
600:
542:
531:
520:
505:
482:
385:
357:
203:
83:
642:
463:
343:
113:
414:
407:
220:
625:
75:
67:
562:
516:
444:
199:
195:
49:
447:
then the WoWWiki article should be reworked to be about
Wowpedia.
694:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
194:
The new wiki has no established notability separate from
287:
109:
105:
101:
170:
406:
According to Wikia, there were just over 2000 active
184:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
704:). No further edits should be made to this page.
599:project, not the same project with a new name.
251:list of video game related deletion discussions
667:If the pages are to be merged, a paged titled
309:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
219:, however, as an admin of the new project. --
8:
303:
307:: This debate has been included in the
279:
249:: This debate has been included in the
420:According to Wikia, there are/were 22
397:How much of the community has moved: —
413:Since the fork, over 1870 users have
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
202:article, so no merge is necessary.
356:So noted. Consensus can change.
285:
24:
215:, per the nomination. I've got a
682:sometime after November 20th. —
273:
1:
439:articles anyway. If Wowpedia
267:
687:17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
677:13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
651:00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
614:13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
604:14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
591:23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
578:16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
546:17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
537:14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
524:11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
511:02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
495:19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
472:19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
457:18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
415:registered Wowpedia accounts
402:17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
389:02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
379:01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
361:22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
352:18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
337:14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
319:13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
298:13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
261:
241:13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
229:13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
207:12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
62:20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
255:
721:
697:Please do not modify it.
408:registered WoWWiki users
32:Please do not modify it.
316:Reach Out to the Truth
295:Reach Out to the Truth
238:Reach Out to the Truth
422:listed WoWWiki admins
213:Redirect (to section)
632:significant coverage
217:conflict of interest
559:Delete and redirect
575:
321:
312:
300:
712:
699:
569:
410:before the fork.
313:
292:
291:
290:
283:
277:
271:
265:
259:
245:
189:
188:
174:
127:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
720:
719:
715:
714:
713:
711:
710:
709:
708:
702:deletion review
695:
659:
535:
509:
286:
254:
131:
123:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
718:
716:
707:
706:
690:
689:
679:
664:
663:
658:
655:
654:
653:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
584:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
529:
503:
497:
476:
475:
474:
430:
429:
428:
425:
418:
411:
394:
393:
392:
391:
373:
366:
365:
364:
363:
339:
322:
301:
243:
231:
192:
191:
128:
125:Afd statistics
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
717:
705:
703:
698:
692:
691:
688:
685:
680:
678:
675:
670:
669:Warcraft wiki
666:
665:
662:Warcraft Wiki
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
638:
633:
629:
627:
623:
615:
612:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
589:
581:
580:
579:
573:
568:
564:
560:
557:
556:
547:
544:
540:
539:
538:
534:
533:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
507:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:Talk:Wowpedia
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
426:
423:
419:
416:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
395:
390:
387:
382:
381:
380:
377:
371:
368:
367:
362:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
320:
317:
310:
306:
302:
299:
296:
289:
282:
276:
270:
264:
258:
252:
248:
244:
242:
239:
235:
232:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
696:
693:
668:
657:New proposal
636:
624:
596:
558:
530:
504:
499:
478:
440:
436:
432:
369:
325:Redirect to
324:
304:
246:
233:
212:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
449:Harry Blue5
329:Harry Blue5
158:free images
54:Marasmusine
628:to WoWwiki
519:article.
684:MJBurrage
674:MJBurrage
611:MJBurrage
588:MJBurrage
399:MJBurrage
376:MJBurrage
637:reliable
626:Redirect
487:Ddcorkum
443:the new
234:Redirect
120:View log
76:Wowpedia
68:Wowpedia
46:redirect
643:Teancum
639:sources
563:WoWWiki
517:WoWWiki
479:Comment
464:Protonk
445:WoWWiki
433:Comment
344:Protonk
200:WoWWiki
196:WoWWiki
164:WP refs
152:scholar
93:protect
88:history
50:WoWWiki
601:Powers
543:Powers
521:Powers
386:Powers
358:Powers
204:Powers
136:Google
97:delete
634:from
567:Barek
532:Blake
506:Blake
500:Merge
179:JSTOR
140:books
122:) •
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
647:talk
641:. --
583:too.
572:talk
491:talk
468:talk
453:talk
370:Keep
348:talk
333:talk
305:Note
288:Talk
247:Note
225:talk
221:Izno
172:FENS
146:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
597:new
437:two
314:--
253:. (
186:TWL
118:– (
48:to
649:)
576:-
493:)
470:)
455:)
441:is
350:)
335:)
311:.
293:)
281:RS
227:)
166:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
672:—
645:(
609:—
586:—
574:)
570:(
489:(
466:(
451:(
417:.
346:(
331:(
284:·
278:·
275:S
272:·
269:B
266:·
263:N
260:·
257:G
223:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.