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 Keep. --- Glen 05:30, 7 September 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)).

this is all original research. not a single source or reference. why??!!?? Metspadres 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep AfD is not a way to go about finding sources for articles. An AfD has already been done and the consensus and ruling was to keep. The clan is notable and lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. I suggest you retract your nomination. You can go about noting lack of resources in other avenues, which are actually the correct way to go about it. This is faulty. Shazbot85^Talk 04:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article is a little over-laudatory... I doubt the word 'revolutionized' is appropriate, and it doesn't really explain what Shadowclan really is all that well--but it is certain notable, per the sources, and shazbot. Do not suggest, however, pointedly, a speedy keep.-Kmaguir1 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There're enough links in the article to show that the entity exists, that it is popular (active forum), and that is has at least a bit of notability, although much of the text in the article is unproven and a bit over the top. Herostratus 05:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the word "revolutionized"?... that one struck me as off base.-Kmaguir1 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I mean, feel free to edit the article and take that out. But that doesn't mean the article itself should be destroyed. I mean, I don't know if they're notable, not being invokved in that mileu, but their forum is big anyway. Herostratus 05:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears the only support this nominator has for deletion is lack of sources. If you want to see about citing sources, I suggest the user refer to the citation page to go about that. I urge the nominator and everyone else to kindly refer to the deletion guidelines, particularly the "Renominations and recurring candidates" section. There, re-nominators are warned to be careful. Now, if you'll kindly refer to the "Problems that may require deletion" section, you'll see his nomination reason falls nowhere in there. I believe the re-nominating editor was brash in his nomination of this page, due to his new user status (refer to his contrib's page and note he has few contribs). I reiterate that this should be pursued in the proper manner, through WP:Cite. I urge the nominator to withdraw his claim, post-hast. Best Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We've already been through all of this and the reasons cited to go through it again aren't sufficient. Bagginator 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis article was already nominated for deletion once and the result of the discussion was "keep". There are many sources of information and references linked at the bottom of the page; If you are upset about not having an in-text citation I am sure that can be corrected. If you cannot provide sufficient proof that this article somehow violates Wikipedia's policies then I suggest this nomination for deletion be removed. Khasha'an 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has already once proven itself in previous deletion debates. If you have offense to some of the wording in the article, simply comment that you wish it to be changed, do not nominate it for deletion. This article does not violate any policies, and is properly sourced and has been proven notable once before. I also suggest that this nomination for deletion be removed. Zinian 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article was already discussed and proven to be notable. In agreement with others, this nomination for deletion should be removed as violation of the policies for deletion. Fishermen1 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete just a guild plain a simple and we don't allow guilds or clans on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 September 2006.

• Comment Annonymous votes aren't even considered from my understanding so it's wise for you to sign your comments. You also need to provide a reason, that actually contains substance for your vote, not simply a "me too" comment, devoid of anything pertinent or rational. Note to all The user posting the above vote is also someone who has repeatedly tried to add his advertisement link to the Shadowclan page, and everytime it has been removed. He has been warned twice informally and once formally now for this behavior, and the barring of his website brings his sudden intrest in this AfD to question as far as I am concerned. Seems vindictive at least. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment It appears the voter in question has made an admission of association with a rival guild of Shadowclans' that existed on a different server. Their guildpage apparently got deleted because they were not notable in the fashion that this guild is, and it seems like this jealousy issue is a possible fuel, either primary, secondary, or tertiary, to his baseless vote on this page. See User talk:Lenapeco911 for the exchange. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The author of this single dissenting vote, User:Lenapeco911, is in fact the author of the Bloodclan Wikipedia page. His guildpage is up for deletion for non notability. I question his motives for his vote. Bloodclan was similar to Shadowclan in that they inhabited the same server as the one Shadowclan started on, and they also roleplayed orcs. However, Bloodclan never reached notoriety that even came close to rivaling Shadowclan from game developers and the like, which is why I can see the article being deleted and the Shadowclan one kept. I hope there is a way to circumvent his voice in this discussion being that it is biased. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would prefer it if the entry for Shadowclan and/or Bloodclan not cause Wikipedia to become a battle-ground for these two groups. The point is, Shdadowclan has more hard evidence and sources than the other, and that is why it should be kept and the other deleted, regardless of who came first or whatever else they want to argue about. This online encyclopedia is a place to get information, not where two clans can squabble over notoriety. Zinian 05:39, 5 September

All these keeps are Shadowclan members http://www.shadowclan.org/darkmoot/viewtopic.php?t=37944&start=0 they posted on their game forum to get guild members to support this online guild. The fact is there is other guilds who even have more sources and fame and are deleted daily. Shadowclan should not get a pass. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs) .

It's often etiquette to warn the page's author(s) that their article is up for deletion. I don't see how this is relevant to the non-existant claim that this article should be deleted. I'm still waiting on a claim to refute or some shred of evidence to be presented. Shazbot85^Talk 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot are you a moderater here?

• Keep - This discussion is very interesting and all, and I probably would have chosen Delete in the first nomination had I participated in it (it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a computer game group has the kind of notability for Wikipedia). However, the article survived a notability AfD nomination fair and square, and this current nomination is not based valid criteria—there exists a tag for unsourced articles. Simoes 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While im not voting on notability, I do take it with a grain of salt. First redirecting people from the clan homepage to the wikipedia AFD as it has happened here is not a nice thing, and might have moved the tides of the first Afd as well, Also take e.g. the "Victory!" section on User:Shazbot85, considering this to be a kind of fight-game ... note as far I have seen shadowclan got already deleted twice bevore, but now they semm to have got their way (so this is actually the 4th nomination). And second this might open a pandara box, as then every clan wants to get a page... then they post two interviews upon some side with a headsperson and thats it, they are notable. Not that every game has its own fan site, and yes most likely will post interviews to some clans on that game.. tada a big can of worms umms clans is open, that take their childish fights now on wikipedia. --Jestix
• Comment Alerted the writers that the article was up for deletion, and you misinterpret "Victory" to fit your own uses. Anything else you want to take out of context Jistix? Shazbot85^Talk 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI interpret "Victory" as the end of "game", and I honestly don't like that notion of "game". --Jestix 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Or as one ideal prevailing over another. That idea and thos who hold it are the prevailers, or the "victors". I suggest you think a little bit more before you talk and be a little more NPOV. As it is, you seem to see things the way you want to see them and you assume bad faith on a consistant basis. Perhaps it's time to cool off or take a wikibreak? Best regards, Shazbot85^Talk 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The arguments for and against deletion have been well made in the previous discussion of the topic. In that discussion, the consensus decision was that Shadowclan is notable. The criteria have not changed since then. To reiterate, this article does not exist because Shadowclan is a gaming guild. Gaming guilds, as a general rule, are rightfully not notable. Even though Shadowclan was the largest guild ever in Ultima Online (UO) - the first major massively multiplayer game (MMORPG) - that does not make it notable. Neither does the fact that it was the largest guild in Dark Age of Camelot. Size does not make a guild notable. What is notable is what was done for the very first time. That action -- that creation -- was named Shadowclan. The fact that Shadowclan is a gaming guild is irrelevant to its notoriety. It is the action that is notable, and the results of these actions that made it notable. There are at least two highly notable aspects to this action. Both have been recognized by key developers of the MMORPG genre and the MMORPG media, and these have influenced the design of several MMORPGs, and influenced how many people play MMORPGs. In fact, many derivative efforts based on Shadowclan have been spawned. The first notable aspect is that an organized highly successful effort was made for the first time ever to take the place of the artificial-intelligence-controlled monsters in a major MMORPG by having people roleplay these monsters. This took Ultima Online in a direction unanticipated by its creators, yet recognized and supported by the creators, even to the extent of creating special servers that better supported this type of gameplay (Siege Perious). The second notable aspect is that a large vibrant virtual online collective-oriented roleplayed community was created. This community was active 24 hours a day, every day, for years. As MMORPGS will continue to grow and develop (World of Warcraft for example has over 6 million players), they may become in many ways more like real life. As this happens, strong Shadowclan-type organized communities will likely become more common. Perhaps even they will begin to rival the size, activity, and economies of small countries. The origin of this can be traced back to the orc community in Ultima Online known as Shadowclan. One could also argue that Shadowclan is notable as being the first and largest Tolkein-style Orc-based community effort, even integrating Tolkein’s Black Speech into the language. Most people familiar with the history of MMORPGs have heard a great deal about Shadowclan and many probably also understand its influence. This article is for those seeking to become better educated about an aspect of the history of this increasingly significant development of the internet era - online worlds and the resulting virtual communities. Berog 05:25, 7 September 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.