Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Dragon Inn

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 ambiguous.

I count 8 "delete" votes to 4 "keep" or "merge" votes (one probable troll vote discounted). The current article is an orphan which, seeing that it's a technology topic and Wikipedia has a known bias toward the creation and linking of such articles, I take for weak evidence that comparatively few people are interested in this topic.

I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision but without prejudice if someone wants to add the reference into the America Online article. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Red Dragon Inn

Chatrooms are not inherently notable. Delete as such. Denni ☯ 02:26, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (Although unenthusiastic about the article quality.) Any AOL (and prior, Q-Link) RPGer of the last fifteen or twenty years has been here. While the UNIX elite were MUDding away, or haunting IRC channels, the general RPG public came here. This is an icon in the history of online pop culture. --Unfocused 05:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone has the time, I think it would be appropriate to just go ahead and Merge it into America Online. I didn't realize how litte was in the main AOL article, relative to the size and influence of the service. I normally check these things, I apologize for being a bit lazy this time. This article should be at home there. --Unfocused 15:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- borderline notable in its milieu; active board; I'd reckon higher than average chance of a search being made; possible potential for cross-linkage --Simon Cursitor 07:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Unfocused and Simoncusitor, sounds very notable in its field. Kappa 09:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity Proto 10:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chat-room-cruft. — JIP | Talk 10:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mikkalai 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not part of the RPG community in any way (well, I play Zelda, does that count?), and yet I somehow recognised the name the moment I saw it! However, despite an outsider (me!) recognising it, is it encyclopedic? Not its current form, nono, but will it *ever* be encyclopedic? THAT is the question. And I really don't know how notable chatrooms are, it's not the same as a forum and the keeping of those is strict too. Also, since it seems only AOL users can use the chatroom (? I assume due to the aol:// protocol) it may have too a narrow perspective for our global encyclopedia. ~~Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)~~ Actually I was mistaken, I was thinking of THIS Red Dragon Inn, not that one. Delete, unless it can prove to me why it's interesting and encyclopedic. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Blast from my past, for sure. Keep or merge w/AOL. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with AOL. I've been in this chat and it's definitely not notable. There are other chats, like "Beliefs Atheism" which could be considered to have a bit of notability, but not this one. Stancel 20:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a seperate article it seems notable by itself Yuckfoo 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If delete fails, merge to AOL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.