Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScoreHero

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 Delete, consensus is that notability has not been established by enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScoreHero

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I'm not convinced by the sources provided that this website is notable enough for inclusion. A large portion of the "ScoreHero in the Media" section describes certain users of the site, and not the site itself. It's also a rather serious issue that the name of a 9 year old is included in this article, which opens up a couple of WP:BLP issues, although those can be fixed. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I ask all of the ScoreHero forum members monitoring this article here not to interfere with this. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to disregard your request (but try to maintain NPOV still). I would argue that ScoreHero is notable due to how the related game developers themselves have supported the community (citations coming) through large money donations, exclusive access, and even employment. One could also argue that it is by far the largest score tracking site for any game, which is quite an achievement, but I'm not sure if that helps to meet notability guidelines. Jason Patton (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My request not to "interfere" was sort of targeted at the vandalizing types, so you're just fine. Also, the reason I brought this page to AfD was because it was created and expanded, but was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 in the past (under the name Scorehero - the logs are there). I wanted to get a clear up or down on the notability of the subject; my view is minimal, although I did argue towards the "non-notable" camp. If you can argue its notability, which you seem to be doing just fine, more power to you. (I'm referring to WP:WEB when I ask for notability). Sean William @ 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I fail to see the assertion of notability for this relatively new website. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of members are mentioned, yes. However, WuLFe and smokyprogg both specifically mention SH in their interviews, ans there is a lot of notablility to SH itself. In fact, Times Online asked smoky a question almsot entirely about SH. I haven't checked Ben's interview yet, but I'm sure he mentions SH as well.

And I removed Ben's full name. Sorry about that, didn't think much of it, but I see what you mean. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually argued on the forums in the past that the site was non-notable and would probably be deleted. That was before Harmonix and Activision started "woo-ing" the community though. I think the argument then was about the custom song community making the site notable. I'm still not sure how that fits as, in my personal opinion, custom songs are more of a phenomena than something that is really encyclopedic. Jason Patton (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the article clearly falls under criterion #1 of WP:WEB. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some minor mentions, but this can be included at the appropriate page for the game(s). --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall under one category anymore, it fits in more than one, so you can't just put it in one. It would be more logical in my opinion to put this as related articles for the Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, and any other game this site will include in the future. Plerrius (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forum shop all you want, but this is a website, therefore it falls under WP:WEB. If you want it kept, best go looking for reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? It has reliable sources. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--n1yaN t 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, please provide your rationale for deletion. Sean William @ 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who are voting delete, again:

I think the article clearly falls under criterion #1 of WP:WEB.

Anyway, I vote keep. Not like I have to state that, though. I've already said what I think about the issues addressed. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article would be better suited regarding ScoreHero the company, not ScoreHero the website. At the very least that would prevent WP:WEB from applying. However, one of the moderators has just now (in IRC) said that there isn't much information about it public yet, so there wouldn't be much in the way of sources. Until there are sources about ScoreHero the company, I'm going to have to err on the side of delete. Andy Janata (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2007 (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.