Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd nom)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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 was I am boldly CLOSING this debate early; apparent bad faith nomination by SPA, and discussion is far too contaminated with open-proxy sockpuppetry to achieve any consensus. Good-faith users are welcome to renominate the article if they see fit, but I strongly suggest it be monitored closely by an administrator. Note that I have no opinion on the matter and have not edited the article at any time in the past. *** Crotalus *** 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com

AfDs for this article:
GameTZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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. Darkenedwing 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) — Darkenedwing (talk • contribs) has made four edits to Wikipedia outside this topic. [reply]

Non-trivial sources is the issue. Look closely... 74.242.99.95 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did you change your vote so many times? 74.242.99.95 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise this was nominated for deletion previously this month. Addhoc 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to 3 sources. What's with all the new accounts? Addhoc 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I think we should salt the earth based on the history here. 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? 74.242.99.95 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — 74.242.99.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. Nominating this again after four days is ridiculous. Further, there seem to be sufficient reliable sources to make a small but adequate article. The conflict of interest issues worry me some, so I'd encourage article authors to be especially strict about original research and unintentional bias, but none of those things are cause to delete this article. William Pietri 06:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources include itself, USENET, a blog, and "a small, one man, company dedicated to creating and operating Internet communities." Not reliable sources. The WIST story only mentions the site in passing. The two GamePro references do not link to any articles viewable online. Not a verifiable source from where I sit. The article on GamePro itself casts doubt as to it's reliability as well. DarkAudit 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good news! It turns out that people still managed to conduct research in the dark ages before the invention of the World Wide Web. Libraries keep not just old books, but old magazines. You can also typically get back issues or copies of articles from publishers. Companies are also generally happy to send you copies of press clippings in their file. Online sources are preferred to offline ones, but much of the world's knowledge is still on paper. That something can't be verified without leaving your chair does not mean it does not meet WP:V. William Pietri 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say it does not exist, just that I couldn't verify it. As noted previously, the description and alleged reputation of the magazine in the GamePro article would make me doubt it's reliability. DarkAudit 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you said it wasn't a verifiable source, suggesting it doesn't meet WP:V. I agree you haven't verified it, and neither have I, but either of us could, so we should presume that it's verifiable. As to the (unsourced) claims that it's not a great mag, could well be. William Pietri 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently, if you dislike an article enough, you can simply keep nominating it until you catch a day when the voting is in your favor. Looks like some sockpuppets in the voting, from where I sit, not on the editing of the page, as is implied above. Dstumme 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Dstumme is under pending investigation as a possible meatpuppet of user Nihonjoe. Bear in mind, these accounts are responsible for the original overturn (please review the deletion log) and most of the article's contributions. As brought up numerous times, this may be a strong case of article ownership. 74.242.99.173 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — 74.242.99.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
LOL! Got any evidence there, other than that we both disagree with you? Got to love accusations of sock puppetry coming from an anonymous IP. Please note that nothing has been posted about this at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. He's basically trying to discredit the vote with a simple accusation. Dstumme 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why I make anonymous contributions. When dealing with cases of article ownership, biased interest or edit conflicts, some users take it upon theirselves to disrupt other articles to illustrate their point. Keeping an active account means giving these users a route (my contribution history) from which to further disrupt Wikipedia. Anonymously debating issues such as this helps to deter any such possibility. 74.242.99.173 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, William Pietri 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. 74.242.99.173 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless it's an invisible request. Let's keep things honest here. If you (or someone else) has put in a checkuser or 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally I agree just leave the article to be. If it has another so-called problem then please do delete it.--71.96.237.113 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — 71.96.237.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep as bad faith nomination yet again by yet another 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which references don't fail WP:N? Please point them out for the sake of discussion. 74.242.99.62 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. 74.242.99.62 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stressed already, please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. 74.242.102.16 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up on your talk page to avoid cluttering this AfD debate anymore. 74.242.102.16 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Abeg92 appears to be a meatpuppet. His / her contributions point primarily to debates. 74.242.102.16 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a meatpuppet, he's pretty prolific with over 4000 edits. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very prolific indeed. Look over the contribution history -- most all (98%) contributions point to debates. 74.242.102.16 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dstumme 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is quickly degrading into a flame-war. Bear in mind, we're here to discuss article notability. It just so happens that this particular nomination raises a lot of suspicion. I think we're starting to lose sight of the topic at hand -- whether or not GameTZ fulfills notability guidelines. Let's try to focus on establishing this more thoroughly, please. 74.242.102.16 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm not a meatpuppet: just an editor who happens to agree with Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) here. I don't want to get into a flamewar here, so let's focus on the issues. Abeg92contribs 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Dstumme 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your own advice, there. I'm only pointing out further oddities about nomination. 74.242.102.16 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I have more time on my hands, let's clear this up once and for all.
Lansing State Journal - WP:WEB, #3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster Lansing State Journal is not well-known. GameTZ is a trivial, one-sentence mention. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
The Daily Cougar - WP:WEB, again #3. The Daily Cougar is NOT well-known. Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of GameTZ. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
GameTZ.com - WP:WEB, #1, #2 and #3. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. GameTZ cannot reference itself. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
Adult Gaming Enthusiasts - WP:WEB, #3. Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
    • GamePro - unconfirmed as of yet.
"Swapping Online" - this is simply a WMV file where someone mentioned GameTZ in a sentence. I'm not even sure where it's from.
WIS10 - WP:WEB, #1. 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. Yet another trivial mention. Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
Google Groups - WP:WEB, again #3. Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) Result: fails to meet notability guidelines.
And there you have it, folks. 74.242.102.16 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you appear to be new, let me help you out with some of your confusion here. In order: The Lansing State Journal, part of the Gannett conglomerate, is the number three newspaper in Michigan; it qualfies as a reliable source and a source for notability, especially for these kinds of consumer topics. The Daily Cougar is a student paper, but given that the target audience for GameTZ is heavily student-biased, I'd say we shouldn't ignore it a priori. The subject of an article is a perfectly good source for noncontroversial information. AGE looks dodgy; it does appear to be third-party, but I don't think it has the heft of, say, Gamespot or IGN, so I'd only use it to confirm things otherwise sourced. That you haven't bothered to go to the library to get the GamePro articles does not invalidate them, and they are a long-running professionally produced magazine dedicated to the topic, so I this those are solid sources. As to WIS10, the content is short but not trivial, in that they selected it as an example of the type of site and talked a little about it. The link to the Usenet post is as a primary source; that can be problematic, but here it seems cricket. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion? Not at all. I've been contributing for years. Although, I do appreciate your interest.
There are a few problems here. First, The Lansing State Journal still remains a trivial mention, as I pointed out above. Therefore, it still fails WP:WEB #1. Second, I never invalidated GamePro by bringing it up, but that I have not been able to research it (due to lack of necessary resources) does not necessarily validate it, either. Everything else is your opinion. Unfortunately, Wiki policy is not left up to subjective interpretation. 74.242.102.16 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, from the way I had to tidy up your formatting and your curious intepretations of policy, I got the notion you were new. Anyhow, regarding the LSJ article, I wouldn't call 26% of the article a "trivial mention". With the GamePro articles we WP:AGF on the part of the contributor unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Ergo, we count them here. And on the role of policy, you're dead wrong. The policy is the best of our collective subjective judgment, organized for easy reference. That's why we ignore all rules if they get in the way of building a good encyclopedia. Not that we need to do that here; this isn't a fabulous article, but we only delete articles when we don't have a hope of writing a good one, and I don't think that's the case here. William Pietri 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to demean other contributors to illustrate your point. Bringing up the subject of my seniority -- or pointing out my formatting -- falls under [fallacy of relevance], as neither serves any purpose to this discussion, which is the notability of the GameTZ article. Please review WP:NPA, and for the love of god, let's please stay on-topic. This discussion is cluttered enough.
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. 74.242.102.16 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. William Pietri 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be pointed out that WP:WEB applies to articles, not to sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ikh (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. —  ROGUE  p 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd_nom)&oldid=1140116162"