Talk:Forsaken Legend

Nor can Mehtap! I want to say that your site better throughout the World Wide Web :) Thank you. Keep it.

...
Ok, either my already bad sight is going or something is up. When were we to be told this site joined the Collaboration? Or was it already here? 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seablue Leveled Up!! +15 Bad Eyesight Points! So that is to say that it has been there for a while now. Like, pre-you being here. 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, sort of.
 * Forsaken Legend used to be Zelda Cavern, which joined the collaboration on April 27. 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * uh, thats where you're wrong. I didn't just level up.
 * Seablue Became Legally Blind!!


 * He now has 20/200 Vision!!


 * Maybe it's just me....
 * ....or something about my eyes. 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
This page talks about a Zelda website that is now closed and did not play a significant part in the Zelda community. If it was still open OR if it played a significant part in the community, then I think the article would be worthy. However, I personally don't think an entire Wiki article is necessary for a website like this. I would recommend that this page be deleted from the Wiki. Mases 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody else have any thoughts or comments on this issue? Mases 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a deletion would be the best option..I have a problem in keeping articles regarding sites that are now closed, and were not even notable to begin with . 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I feel that non-historic sites that are closed down should not have a place on the Wiki. Dabombster 08:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody else like to comment on this? As I've said, I'd like this page to be deleted because of its lack of relevance, but I'd like their to be a majority before that is done. Mases 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that webmasters of Zelda site, or even staff of these fan sites, are far too biased to their own sites to adequately make decisions regarding the deletion of these articles. I'd say leave it to the neutral parties to decide. A lot of people will view what you are currently doing as competition between rival sites. Whether that is intentional or not. As a webmaster you are predisposed to believe that most sites other than yours and your affiliates were worthless. Well the cold dose of reality is that this is not true and is not your decision to make. 03:49, February 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing, Matt. I don't think it's intentional by Mases, but it's not like it was one of the Freewebs or InvisionFree boards, so i think it deserves it's page. If we delete all the pages of sites that went under, then it'll look to a newcomer like ZU, ZD, ZI, and a few others are all that ever existed. 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh... that is another point that I feel that needs to be made. Exactly what hosting a site has should not have any bearing on its notability. Most webmasters believe that freely hosted site will never amount to anything. That is a horribly biased thing to say. They forget that many big sites today started out as freely hosted. A site's success has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is freely hosted. It all depends on what they actually do and its members. 04:41, February 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt has a valid point. Also, we are going to delete sites because they are, "no longer open"? That is flat-out unfair. Axiomist has a good point as well, without pages like this, it would pretty much be like erasing records of the sites. 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to mention that I respect that he asked for a majority before deleting it. But yea, a few, and a very small few of the Freeweb sites get past a handful of active members, I wasn't saying a website is worthless for being one, but most of the ones that are one tend to be very minor. Didn't I see a page here for a site that has yet to exist, I'll vote to delete that until it's up and judgement can be made on it. 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of me does have a bias towards wanting to get Zelda Dungeon more attention here at the Wiki, but the decision on my behalf to try to cleanup the Zelda fansite directory is simply to try and get a more accurate representation of the current Zelda websites online, as well as the historically significant Zelda websites. However, (directed towards Matt), I understand your stance on this, because you were one of the webmasters that has attempted to start your own site, and to some extent, were persecuted by Jason and Nathan for doing so, in regards to its relationship with the Zelda Wiki. Starting a website now is not impossible, but its drastically different than when it was 6-7 years ago. In all fairness, I'm not sure its fair to use the biasm argument, given your own recent history is tied directly to this as well. I'd rather this discussion be about the betterment of the Wiki. In regards to this Wiki article, here are a few grounds that I think this page should be deleted.

1. The neutrality of the article. It is a first person account of the history, not an encyclopedic article. If the first person accounts are taken out, and the unsourced material is also taken out, then there is very little information left. 2. The website was online for about one year, and has played a very insignificant role in the community. The significant things I do remember from this website, is the individual problems the Webmaster had with fellow webmasters in the community. That is the legacy of the website in my opinion. I was friends with Sam, the webmaster, but almost all my talks with him, were in regards to problems he had with other webmasters, very little to do with his actual website. 3. The website is now closed. Since it is closed, it is unlikely this page will ever get revamped to a point where it would be acceptable for Wiki standards. There is only a small portion of people that could write anything for this article, of which none of them would actually take the time to do so, because it is not important to do so. The only way I can ever see this article amounting to something, is if the website is relaunched and the Webmaster himself takes the time to come here and edit the article. If the website does in fact relaunch and is active, I would agree to allowing it to have its own Wiki article.

Prior to some discussions I had with Matt, I believed all incomplete old/closed websites should not have articles, but I've changed my opinion on this. I now think that there are about a dozen or so significant websites that should have their own Wiki articles. However, Forsaken Legend is certainly not one of them. Mases 06:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)