Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Credits

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 keep. tyhe arguments after the reslisting is sufficient for a keep. Myself, I do not kow the field well enough to judge the sources, so I can only go by the apparent consensus. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Credits

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

I've declined the A7 speedy on this article on the grounds of third-party sources added by the creator. However, those are blogs that accept user-generated content and do not establish notability. Delete unless more reliable sources can be found. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb contends that there are no "reliable sources," even though there are numerous sources of varying topics, locations, and interests shown - all unbiased and unrelated to the content creators in question - most of which are not blogs, but in fact legitimate .com and .org websites. All content is "user generated," including journalistic sources, and including Wikipedia entries - to suggest otherwise is just silly. Furthermore, two more excellent references are available, but they are blacklisted by Wikipedia. The writing of the article is obviously unbiased and well presented, offers links to many other Wikipedia pages, and meets all the standards that Wikipedia upholds. How could this article possibly be made better than it already is? --Cfox101 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the very fact the content of these sources is user-generated tends to make them unreliable per our standards. To be considered reliable, a source must at the very least have some sort of editorial oversight system in place that checks postings for facts before making these postings publicly available. We're not talking about taking the Wall Street Journal and equally famous sources as the only ones we'll use, but what we don't want is notability that relies only on web posts that haven't been checked for factual accuracy - that is, if you take something from the web, it has to be from a site where knowledgeable humans will evaluate the contents of a posting before the general public sees it. That's to establish notability, that is, whether the article's topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Once that's done, that requirement becomes optional (though still recommended) for additional sources to include additional material. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the links presented are factual enough to denote notability (not to mention the amount of time people have gone through to make this article so far, which people wouldn't do if they didn't feel it was notable), and given the changing mood of people to be less strict with notability and allow more articles to be generated in a response to the flat-lining levels of article creation, editing and daily traffic counts as it is anyway, I'd say change the "Delete this" tag to an "Improve this" tag. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added the proper cite tag. You can go ahead and remove the deletion request per Wikipedia procedure. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All you added a maintenance tag, not an actual reference. That doesn't address the deletion rationale. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the sources, Blanchardb? Let me make things simple. Here are all the references already listed that have an editorial staff: GamePolitics, Login News, Gamedev, N4G, Nightmare Mode, Shh! Mom, Elder Geek, Gaming Irresponsibly. That's eight separate sources of information on this topic with an editorial oversight which, by your definition as well as by the standards of Wikipedia, qualify the notability of the sources, as well as the reliability of the article. They're all there, right in the reference section; you can double-check the links yourself. Are there primary sources in the reference section as well? Absolutely - what article on Wikipedia does NOT contain primary sources? But it is clearly evident that these third-party references with editorial staff, that have no affiliation with the primary source, give grounds to the reliability of this article. To argue otherwise would be an exercise in irrationality. --Cfox101 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still eager to hear critique or meaningful suggestions on how to make this article's references, which seem exceptional to me, better. Please, by all means. --Cfox101 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the "episodes" were listed, akin to a TV series, professors that show the episodes can now be cited as the site is in flux, changing sites. This is absolutely necessary for Wikipedia as a discussion series entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlinnemann (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cfox101's rationale. If all that is required for notability is a verifiable third-party source with editorial oversight, then Extra Credits has that in spades. While it's a niche interest, Wikipedia is full of niche interests - all of which are as well sourced as Extra Credits is, for good or bad. I'd say keep as a small article, but research more sources to add more notability. Lithorien (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cfox101 establishes multiple reliable sources, and those sources establish notability. Treedel (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Per above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 10:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't already obvious per above, Snow Keep so we can stop wasting people's time. JQF • Talk • Contribs 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's been a week of this needless rigamarole. --Cfox101 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (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.