Talk:Shadowclan

Original Research

the whole article is original research!!! wikipedia rules are that you have t have sources but there aren't any. Metspadres 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, alot of the facts are outlined in some of the earlier spotlights and coverage by Ultima Online, which are linked in the article.

Wikipedia shouldn't be used to pump the egos of individual groups of computer gamers. Delete this article!

Express that in the AfD page, (even though its' a failed endevour, a futility engaged in by a new user unaware of what they were doing). The notability has been established so I really don't understand what your arguement is, other than the inane "me too!" replies the masses throw out. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

or I'll mention it here. moron

Articale pertains to a video game guild and is note noteworthy. `` ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikemiddleton (talk • contribs).

PageName

PageName (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 11#{{subst:PageName}}|View log]])

a Shadowclan sockpuppet removed my AFD so I put it back. This is a video game guild and is not noteworthy. Please do not remove AFD if you are a sockpuppet or have a conflict of interest. This articale appears to be protected by members of the online guild or other sockpuppets. Mikemiddleton 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets Wow the only reason this article seems to pass AFD's is because they have many sockpuppets back them up. I suggest someone nominate this article for deletion again and not allow so many sockpuppets to comment. Bobbythebuilder 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a pretty weak article. It seems as though the 2nd AfD nomination overwrote the first, because it didn't have (2nd nomination) in the name... wish I could have read that one too. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that comment, I saw two AfD's up there, but they both link to a discussion dated 8/13, so I don't know what the second one is supposed to be. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the two deletion discussions [1][2], it seems to me that actually, there is a broad consensus that this gaming clan is just barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Are there any particular comments on those discussions that you believe to have been made by sockpuppets? --Stormie 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Added in the reference to them in Massive Magazine. If they've been able to stay notable till now, it seems they should qualify now. Sockpuppets or not, they can be considered notable. --User:Zinian 20:29, 4 Mrach 2007 (UTC)

File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)