Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 30 May 2007 (→[[GameTZ.com]]: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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) This template must be substituted.[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) This template must be substituted.[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) This template must be substituted.[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]
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd_nom)&oldid=134585486"