Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videogame Recaps
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. That the keep voters failed to assert any notability sways my decision. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a website that does not appear to be notable according to WP:WEB. It is not easy to search for prose references to it but Google finds only 8 unique links to it, plus 62 unique (of 988) mentions of the ___domain name. The article itself is devoid of encyclopedic content; it is mostly a collection of in-jokes that appear to border on attacks on individual members of the site. Henning Makholm 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor removed prod with the comment: removed prod tag due to similarity of this article to the Television Without Pity article, which has not been proposed for deletion due to "lack of encyclopedic content". Of course "X must be deleted before Y" is not a valid argument, but one also notes that Google and Alexa both invalidate this comparison: Televisionwithoutpity.com has about 50 times as many links as videogamercaps.com, and an Alexa rating of 1305 versus above 100,000 for videogamerecaps.com. Henning Makholm 14:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. — Seems a shame though as it's a decently-developed wikipedia page. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. There's some notability, but not nearly enough. -- Kicking222 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's nothing in WP:WEB about a certain number of google or alexa hits that a site has to have to be notable.Antimatter Spork 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but a very high number of google hits can nevertheless sometimes make up for a lack of any of the actyal notability criteria in WP:WEB. This website has neither any of the WP:WEB kinds of notability nor an overpowering amount of google foo. Henning Makholm 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because TwoP is more famous, the VGR article is less worthy? Nice priorities there, guys.
- Correct, but a very high number of google hits can nevertheless sometimes make up for a lack of any of the actyal notability criteria in WP:WEB. This website has neither any of the WP:WEB kinds of notability nor an overpowering amount of google foo. Henning Makholm 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Site hovers at the barest cusp of notability. - CNichols 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 11:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.