Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd nom): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 14:
:{{la|GameTZ.com}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd nom)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 26#{{anchorencode:GameTZ.com}}|View log]])</noinclude>
'''Speedy delete and salt''', per previous nom. Criteria to overturn original deletion fails, per biased interest and possible sockpuppetry. (pending investigation) As expressed, strong case of article ownership. Previous AfD was no-consensus, due to obvious lack of article notability being unable to generate sufficient traffic. This nonsense is getting out of hand. [[User:Darkenedwing|Darkenedwing]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Darkenedwing|Darkenedwing]] ([[User talk:Darkenedwing|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Darkenedwing|contribs]]) has made four edits to Wikipedia outside this topic. </small>
* '''salt''' per second nomination. [[User:8.14.147.162|8.14.147.162]] 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/8.14.147.162|8.14.147.162]] ([[User talk:8.14.147.162|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small><small>This IP has been blocked as an <
*'''Keep''' - article subject is notable and has multiple [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22GameTZ.com%22 sources] Problem is the article relies too heavily on primary sources. Also, this is too soon since last nomination. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
:Non-trivial sources is the issue. Look closely... [[User:74.242.99.95|74.242.99.95]] 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
::Also, why did you change your vote so many times? [[User:74.242.99.95|74.242.99.95]] 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Didn't realise this was nominated for deletion previously this month. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''delete and salt''' per [[WP:N]]. This was covered in all nominations and the deletion overturn log? [[User:198.145.112.200|198.145.112.200]] 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/198.145.112.200|198.145.112.200]] ([[User talk:198.145.112.200|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small><small>This IP has been blocked as an <
*''' salt ''' as above. Can someone point out these supposed sources? [[User:Chan-change^^|Chan-change^^]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Chan-change^^|Chan-change^^]] ([[User talk:Chan-change^^|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chan-change^^|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::I've linked to 3 sources. What's with all the new accounts? [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
'''Delete and salt''' - I think we should salt the earth based on the history here. [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]] seems to take strong ownership over the article, and is really the only reason why it was overturned. I'm not convinced that the overturn was necessary at all. These sources aren't very convincing either. There are a couple that look solid from a distance, but are one sentence mentions. The site in question sounds like a notable subject, but there has been a lot of time inbetween nomination and now for more references to be provided. Based on its history it doesn't look like its going anywhere. Is salting too much? [[User:74.242.99.95|74.242.99.95]] 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/74.242.99.95|74.242.99.95]] ([[User talk:74.242.99.95|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Hesitant salt''' It does indeed seem like article ownership based on the logs, but I'm not sure if a salting is necessary. Also, nomination was a bit hasty. [[User:207.58.143.17|207.58.143.17]] 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/207.58.143.17|207.58.143.17]] ([[User talk:207.58.143.17|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small><small>This IP has been blocked as an <
* '''Keep'''. Nominating this again after four days is ridiculous. Further, there seem to be sufficient [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to make a small but adequate article. The [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] issues worry me some, so I'd encourage article authors to be especially strict about [[WP:OR|original research]] and unintentional bias, but none of those things are cause to delete this article. [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 06:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 37:
::: Could you please link to the current investigation you describe? It is a very serious accusation, and if you aren't willing to prove it, you should withdraw it. Also, although anonymous contributions here may provide the benefit you describe, the lack of any track record makes it very hard to evaluate your contributions here. As you know, a similar pattern of editing under multiple accounts or IPs is used to cloak all sorts of nefarious activity, so your comments here will be given relatively little weight by most. Thanks, [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: I put in a check user request. (for Dtsumme only) I'm not sure where it went from there, as it's the first time I've ever excersized these features. [[User:74.242.99.173|74.242.99.173]] 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not unless it's an invisible request. Let's keep things honest here. If you (or someone else) has put in a [[WP:RFCU|checkuser]] or [[WP:SSP|suspected sockpuppet]] request or inquiry, please link to it. I couldn't find one at either ___location, and your edit history shows no evidence of you having done either. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
* '''Delete''' as mentioned above nonreliable sources come short of [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]. [[User:66.249.24.232|66.249.24.232]] 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)<small>— [[Special:Contributions/66.249.24.232|66.249.24.232]] ([[User talk:66.249.24.232|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small><small>This IP has been blocked as an <
* '''Keep'''.In my opinion, I see no problem with the article. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.--[[User:Dalmation|Dalmation]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Personally I agree just leave the article to be. If it has another so-called problem then please do delete it.--[[User:71.96.237.113|71.96.237.113]] 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/71.96.237.113|71.96.237.113]] ([[User talk:71.96.237.113|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Strong Keep''' as bad faith nomination yet again by yet another [[WP:SPA|SPA]] bent on deleting an article they don't like. This is ridiculous to have to keep defending this article every other week from obvious bad faith AfD nominations. The article clearly meets [[WP:N]], and GamePro is definitely a reliable source in the gaming community (and therefore, by extension, the rest of the world). There is nothing anywhere in any of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that says that all (or even most) references have to be online references. There are some topics which are more easily rsearched using good old fashioned libraries using sources which are not (and may not ever) be available online. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:'''Comment''' Which references don't fail [[WP:N]]? Please point them out for the sake of discussion. [[User:74.242.99.62|74.242.99.62]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Let me make this easier for you. GamePro and Adult Gaming Enthusiasts fails per dependance on the subject, as well as non-significant coverage. WIS10 fails per non-significant coverage. Various online blogs (I can't believe you're even bothering with these as references) fail per non-significant coverage. '''These are all trivial mentions.''' Usage statistics quoted directly from the site fail per dependence on the subject. Usage statistics quoted from Google serve no interest to the article, either. [[User:74.242.99.62|74.242.99.62]] 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::GamePro has been around for years, and is an accepted reliable source for video gaming information. I fail to see how it comes even close to not being a reliable source. There is nothing in the guidelines or policies that says that a genre-specific source can't be used as a source for a genre-specific topic. That would make absolutely no sense. The requirement is multiple, non-related reliable sources. GamePro is not remotely connected to GameTZ, and neither are any of the other outside sources used in the article. The TV spot gives an entire third or more of the time to GameTZ, which is very significant in a TV spot covering the online trading phenomenon. As for the usage statistics from the site, where else are you going to get them from? As long as those aren't the ''only'' sources used in the article (which they aren't by any stretch of the imagination), referencing usage statistics from the site is perfectly acceptable. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:::As stressed already, please familiarize yourself with [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::::[[WP:OWN]] has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. No one is trying to keep you from editing the article. No one has said that you can't edit it, or that only a small, exclusive group of people can edit it. If you're going to bring up policy, please at least be familiar with what it's about before waving it around. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:::::I brought this up on your [[User_talk:Nihonjoe#GameTZ_dispute_.2F_bad_faith.3F|talk page]] to avoid cluttering this AfD debate anymore. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' as well-referenced article with verifiable and notable sources. I also think it's quite obvious that this is clearly a bad faith nomination. ···[[User:Ganryuu|<
:*This AfD nomination was [[:Template:AfD in 3 steps|incomplete]]. It is listed now. [[User:DumbBOT|DumbBOT]] 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' Multiple reliable sources, well referenced. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]][[User:Abeg92/ea|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]][[User talk:Abeg92|g92]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Abeg92|contribs]]</small> 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
: '''Comment''' User [[User:Abeg92|Abeg92]] appears to be a meatpuppet. His / her contributions point primarily to debates. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::For a meatpuppet, he's pretty prolific with over 4000 edits. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:::Very prolific indeed. Look over the contribution history -- most all (98%) contributions point to debates. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I see 1500-2000 edits that are in the (Main) namespace. (NOT debates.) That's hardly a meat puppet. Please stop tossing around false accusations any time someone disagrees with you. [[User:Dstumme|Dstumme]] 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 61:
::::::I agree, we should stick to the issue at hand. So please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or of having Article Ownership issues, and we won't need to waste more time proving your accusations false. At this point, I'm seeing a lack on consensus on whether or not the sources are relevant enough. Seeing as there is a mix of opinion on this (as in past AfD's), it seems like prevailing logic is to not delete in such a case, right? [[User:Dstumme|Dstumme]] 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Take your own advice, there. I'm only pointing out further oddities about nomination. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We generally wait at least 5 days, so the end of the day tomorrow would be when this AfD would be closed by an admin (one other than myself, though, as I'm obviously involved in the discussion). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
* <span style="font-size: smaller;">Note: This debate has been added to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion|list of video game deletions]]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
*'''Keep''' - Seems notable, at least some references (esp. 1, 9) seem legit. [[User:Ikh|ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 86:
:::::: My argument still stands that these are trivial mentions. Other than the possibility of GamePro, I'm not comfortable with any of the references. Even with GamePro, the subject and reference share too much common interest. I'm also curious of how significant this mention is, so I will do more research on it. In the meantime, if we're assuming that GamePro is a legitimate reference, it's still not enough to establish the notability of this entire article. [[User:74.242.102.16|74.242.102.16]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::: No offense was meant; I was just explaining my misunderstanding. With regard to the rest, I think you've made your opinion clear, and I'm sure that the closing admin will give it all due weight. [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::It should also be pointed out that [[WP:WEB]] applies to ''articles'', not to ''sources''. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:::: I wouldn't really call the ''The Lansing State Journal'' a trivial mention. Reading through the article, one can clearly see that GameTZ.com is one of the article's main subjects, thus clearly non-trivial. Likewise with the WIStv source. While not a lot is written, it's enough to show that GameTZ.com definitely has reliable independent secondary coverage, even if marginally significant. This earns it a place on Wikipedia per [[WP:N]]. [[User:Ikh|ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 93:
::Compelling, on what grounds? Please add something to the argument. This is not a popularity vote.
::Secondly, "article ownership" was not the criteria for deletion -- it's an explaination as to why the article still exists and is being defended so vehemently by the same user. — '''<
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||