An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead.

Don't understand what that has to do with it but I am thinking they might think we are the old red dragon inn from the aol chat rooms.

I was reading the past log on when it got deleted in '05, and they said it was non- enclycopedial or something like that. I guess they see it as not needing to be up on wiki.

That wasn't us jozan it was the other red dragon inn. There used to be one in aol chat I know I was apart of it once when I was looking for something for it I found this one and never went back that was years ago I don't even think it exists anymore but we are different from them.

Ah, that makes much more sense. i was wondering what they meant by combining it with Aol and also talking about chat rooms. maybe they think we are them again?

Is a jerk I wanted to use a different term but there are still people who aren't 18 who come here. He deletes things just for the reason of deleting them looks like. Has let power go to head from what I have read so far. Would prob delete again just for reason of deleting it first time.

if you click on his profile, he's 26 and an administrator of wiki.

I have read many things on wiki that don't meet this but this was his second reason for deleting it.

Criteria

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
* This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]
o Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:
* Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

That is hilarious when compared with the things on wiki.

Anyone else think he looks a little evil and like a villain in a superhero movie from his picture.

I know a wiki sysop, I'll talk to him what the issues are.

In his talk he says many times that a good wiki that is deserving to be up should be done in the up to 6 mins that he allows them. That is a joke I hope I don't know anyone who can make much in 6 mins.

It seems it counts as a conflict of interest in their eyes.

They define COI as:

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.

That is bull no matter who edits or puts up anything on there is in COI because they are promoting other individuals interests even if not meaning to do it.

It was a great idea but it appears that they don't really want anymore pages to their encyclopedia unless they put them up themselves. The only way I could see to get us up there at moment is for a neutral party who hasn't been here and has taken part in nothing to write it. They would still view as conflict of interests I think though since they don't want to prove anything I think.

I was about to say that it wasn't allowed. Maybe Wikia can work?