Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDRUK (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DDRUK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a collection of fansites, and even then this is not notable beyond the niche community. Citations are predominately trivial facts. "In the Media" mentions do not point at the site proper as being notable and makes those resources moot. Example: 1 tiny article note from the BBC is one quote happening to be from a DDRUK member, not about or covering DDRUK itself; Thus saying "covered in a BBC article" or in The Times is false. 1-time guest appearances on certain medium-audience shows discussing the broader topic (DDR) and not DDRUK cut off any notability claim. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I know this is third nomination, but the key for me here is the media "mentions" which were the hinge of the 2 keeps. They do not cover DDRUK itself as an entity but discuss DDR with a quote from member or passive link. Coincidence of being at an event with a BBC reporter and being solicited for a quote is not notability for the site. Not for the person quoted even, so certainly nothing larger. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This website fails WP:WEB and, more broadly, WP:N. This is the most promising potential reference that a Google News search turned up – a short take in a British newspaper in which DDRUK.com was selected as "Website of the Day." Alexa rank is approximately 682,000, for what it's worth. All things considered, the subject falls below our bar for inclusion when it comes to websites. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: If it is as you claimed User:Datheisen, then why isn't articles on forking software, niche blog and -cast (podcast, webcast), mods like Multi Theft Auto deleted. No, that is is totally an and invalid bias excuse. You don't discriminate any content as long their have a significant impact on the subject, which in this case, DDRUK has. (notability is enough to be considered as a note for impact on the game). Though the article may need to be re-focused on the version, impact, culture affect of the game, rather than focusing insignificant sitemap (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). --173.183.102.184 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying other stuff exists that needs to be deleted is not a grounds for a keep. Those articles have significant coverage, that much has been established. Slightly off topic - I took some time to clean up this article, as it was really difficult to sort through it and make a realistic consensus on it. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The essay on otherstuff and mention at WP:ATA repeatedly state that it's not meant as a rationale for a keep or delete. It's a philosophical talking point on articles typically to rebut a stubborn minority of supporters unable to fall back on anything else and a reminder that WP:N as a guideline trumps. You did correctly summarized my view in almost the exact same manner, and I admit that your interpretation is a reasonable view, and I might use similar if the "community" we're talking about were larger in an industry sense. It might suggest "importance" or "significance" but those are lower standards than notability. Having used the site before a lot of helpful things and spending far too much time on sim file perfectionist edits, it still doesn't sit well with me to keep since precedent has been pretty consistent on deletion of fansite articles. Improvements are of course great but I have to stay set on it just plain being non-encyclopedic. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - some of the "trivial" mentions actually talk about DDR UK in decent context. Article needs major cleanup to be encylopedic, and could probably use some cleanup, but the sources cover the content. Source #5 particularly talks about DDRUK and the community. That being said several of the less reliable links are broken. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per Teancum's comments and the fact that a Google Test reveals a pretty good degree of popular reference and thus a very crude demonstration of importance. Obviously that's not saying much, but I'm usually willing to give something that fails the Negative test a second look at least. If there has been participation with the Expos as claimed, then this seems fairly notable to me. Some of the pages linked to DDRUK also make claims that if true seem to be potentially notable. Finally it should be noted that several of the "broken links" are either still up under different addresses or are available via WayBack Machine. In fact, I'll go ahead and fix those links now. -Thibbs (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (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.