Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategyWiki (3rd nomination)

StrategyWiki

StrategyWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple previous AFDs have determined there is nothing notable here. Almost all the references are from the Wiki itself. WP:MILL. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related AfD discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: in addition to the two prior article deletions at this title (albeit both were in the late 2000s, so it might be a bit too early to bring in the salt given the gap since the last attempt), there was a 2023 attempt to redirect this to Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance#English, only for the alliance itself to itself be deemed non-notable at AfD (and it wasn't the first time that happened for that topic either). (No opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT There's clearly an ongoing movement to keep recreating the page, but it remains non-notable, so stricter measures should be taken ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Note: I am aware that the previous deletion noms were a while back, but I don't think there is any harm at all in forcing it to go through AfC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I'm just not seeing where the significant coverage is in sourcing other than articles that state that it's a wiki-type resource that exists and is useful. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is more than just a "trivial mention", though. KR777 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep (obviously): There are multiply reliable sources (Joystiq, Kotaku, Destructoid, MakeUseOf) and the site has factual notability measured by the amount of it's international monthly visitors (in the millions). The site is also notable for its involvment with the wikibooks decision to exclude strategy guides and transfer them to StrategyWiki in 2007 (it is explicitely mentioned in ). I believe there is public interest in having a page for this wiki, giving information where it comes from and what sets it apart. KR777 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a shallow basis for notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it help with asserting notability to include in the article the fact that various academic papers have found it a reliable resource to base their research on (i.e. have included it as a reference)? Or would that be weak since it's only used as a resource and is not the topic of the research itself? KR777 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per zxcvbnm. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral – I'm seeing four sources (MakeUseOf, Kotaku, Destructoid, and Joystiq) that each wrote three paragraphs on the subject. That's not a lot to work with. You always want to have at least one longer piece. But I think you could write an alright little start-class with those, and that can be enough. The sourcing as currently done in the article is very difficult to reckon with, so I would recommend a complete rewrite either way. Definitely doesn't need to be salted. A single new source can easily bring this over the line. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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.