Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoPets (2nd 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 keep. Big Dom 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoPets

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

Queried speedy delete: at 03:09, 25 August 2010 User:Becritical speedy-delete-tagged it "unreferenced since 2006 (except to the site itself), no indication of notability, meets a7 speedy criteria". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messages from my user talk page:

Hi Anthony. I hope this is the appropriate way of contacting you, apologies for my wikipedia ignorance. I followed a link to your page when I went to the GoPets page today and found it deleted. I know it was a fairly lengthy page at one time (mostly maintained by fans). The service had clear notability -- $14m in venture funding from Liberty and other investors, a Red Herring Best of the Web award, a partnership with MSN Messenger, over 2 million registered players -- and there is quite a bit of external source material to confirm this. I was sad to see the page gone -- I worked as a designer on it in the very beginning and off and on through its lifetime. Is there a way I can help provide the external resources (if I understand the note about its deletion correctly, which I may well not) needed to achieve its notability and undeletion? Thanks very much for any help or advice. Gryphoness (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I saw this because I was dealing with the topic above. Since this article passed an AFD in almost the same content in 2006, and has been around since 2005, I think the better solution would be to improve, not to simply delete. I've moved the article into the Article Incubator, where it can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/GoPets. - Philippe 04:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now back in main-space at GoPets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fixed the transclusion on the AFD page for today, and looking at this [[1]] talk page, I see links to [[2]] and [[3]] both of which seem satisfy WP:N. Monty₈₄₅ 08:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have received a fair bit of coverage, I think. No? /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... what Fetchcomms said. - Philippe 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – satisfies WP:N; Fetchcomms just strengthens my point. —mc10 (t/c) 04:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zynga. Minimal sourced content, available coverage appears to be fairly superficial. Meets WP:MERGE criteria #3 'Text' (assuming the article is reduced down to what is WP:V) & #4 'Context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fetchcomms. I don't see the relevance of Hrafn's comment as to how much of current content is sourced, the issue is whether the subject is notable and verifiable, not whether the article is ready for GA status which it patently isn't yet. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Minimal sourced content" = most of the article is not "verifiable". This is not a requirement for GA status, but the mimimum standard for inclusion on Wikipedia (per WP:V). Oh, and "per Fetchcomms" = 'per a small handful of mediocre sources giving minimal coverage' -- hardly a compelling reason for a 'keep'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is still Verifiable not verified. Crucially "in practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". If something has minimal sourced content that is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. As for whether Fetchcomms sources are mediocre, I'm not sure whether by that you mean to challenge their reliability or their significance. Please explain why you consider them "mediocre". Ϣere SpielChequers 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most would consider an AfD to be a 'challenge' -- but if you want explicit tags for the purpose, then I'm happy to provide. If an article has only "minimal sourced content" (relative to the total) then that is a very good reason to kick the tires -- as it is a good indication that the article may contain WP:OR, incorrect information, uncorrected vandalism, etc, etc. I would have thought that it would be crystal clear that by "mediocre sources giving minimal coverage" I was both challenging the "reliability" and the "significance" of the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this sounds obtuse, but taking one specific source as an example, I'm not familiar with redherring.com, but it claims to have award winning journalists. Why are you disputing the reliability of that particular source? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your example, RedHerring appears more infomercial/cheerleader than disinterested: "Red Herring is a global media company uniting the world's best high technology innovators, venture investors and business decision makers in a variety of forums"[4]. I would certainly suggest that it falls short of a "Mainstream news source" as envisaged by WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you feel about Forbes? "Red Herring used to be a hugely influential magazine".... at about the same time as they wrote about GoPets. - Philippe 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes also provides reviews, in the same collection, of the likes of slashdot and Techdirt, which are not considered to be particularly reliable by Wikipedia. "Influential" does not necessarily mean reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)It was the "a leading innovation magazine;" bit that I thought relevant. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't find clearly self-serving self-descriptions to be particularly "relevant" -- so we'll have to agree to differ on that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 1 April 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.