Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheat Code Central


 * 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheat Code Central

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has already been posted and deleted twice as spam. Bringing it here to get a decision as to whether it's cleanuppable and/or worthy of keeping. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride  scent  18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi. I was just wondering what changes need to be made to make it conform to the rules. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just trying my best. I tried to follow this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot


 * Please, any help would be appreciated.


 * Regards,


 * MMCCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gamespot article contains 78 references to reliable sources to establish its notability. While this article certainly doesn't need as many as 78, it needs at least some to explain why other media think it's a noteworthy organisation. – iride  scent  18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll try my best. However, I saw a great amount of those "references" are internal links. Should I do that as well and link to CheatCC reviews, previews, etc. or those links are not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dislike links to the subject's own website but this is totally out of my area. Post a request at WikiProject Video games and someone will help you. You should probably mention this deletion discussion as they're the best people to comment on whether this article is viable. – iride  scent  19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral The lack of external sources troubles me, but it is the 3rd-most visited video gaming sight. Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Alexa test is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment replication of cheats elsewhere does not indicate notability. The interviews could be cited for the aritcles where they originate, but that too does not indicate notability.  Unless the GameFAQs-Dave Allison flap was covered in a reliable publication, it's just an Internet skirmish that shouldn't be added. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but heavily edit. It doesn't need to be more than a few paragraphs in length. All the references need to be corrected too. Fin©™ 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Spammy. Far too detailed.  Reads like advert.  Might merit a one-line mention in cheat codes.  --Thetrick (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not keep after editing? If the goal is to make an encyclopedia, Cheat Code Central should be there, just as Gamespot and IGN are. Shouldn't it? Granted CCC is only half the size of those two, but it's still the third most visited out there, and the #1 choice for codes. Any kid between 10-18 who goes online and plays video games will know CCC. Of course, I know I'm not a neutral source to tell you this, but you could easily investigate the issue and find out...I think we were extremely neutral in the way everything is explained on the doc. Feel free to edit anything you want, shorten the document, etc. I tried to get rid of part of the initial content, but I'm not sure what you guys think is useless and what isn't. I used the Gamespot Wikipedia post as a reference to build this one. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mmccc (talk)


 * Rewrite article - Look, I'm not doubting that Cheat Code Central is notable per WP:N. If it gets the traffic the article says it does, then chances are there are sources that show notability out there.  But the way the article is written now, it's written like an advertisement showing off the details of the site without really talking about why it is notable.  This article needs to be completely rewritten, but should that happen, I think it could stay.  Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup, on the presumption that the references listed are good for showing the notability, but they need to be inline citations to match with the content (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET. --M ASEM  21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep very well known website. DGG (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and could use a rewrite. When a video game cheat site is given a shout-out by the NYT, however brief, that's a pretty major deal.  Ford MF (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is indeed a well known and well used website... needs work though. giggy (O) 11:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - SPAM article for a non-notable website written with COI. Please do not let this degrade into "I've heard of it, so it's notable". There is no establishment of notability. Notability is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not another website quoting a review, or a newspaper's website mentioning noting more than the URL of the website in an essay (under "Some sites with cheat codes"). Reliable secondary sources are not the official website, the website of their hired PR firm, blogs, or even (sorry) MySpace pages. Please attempt to establish real WP:Notability (not popularity or familiarity or whatever).  JohnnyMrNinja  22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but edit — If it is heavily trafficked as with GameFAQs et al, then it should be kept. However, I do concur that this article was written rather poorly and is in need of some extensive editing. MuZemike (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy question - First: does anyone argue that articles on subjects that are not notable should be kept? Second: can anyone provide proof of actual notability per Notability (web)? I think this is vital to the discussion. If it is notable, it should be kept. If it is not notable, it should not. As far as I can tell, the article contains no valid references, just links to top-level domains, blogs and a MySpace page. This discussion has nothing to do with how popular it is, or how well the article is written (as it can always be edited). Can anyone actually prove that that the topic is worthy of inclusion by Wikipedia policies? If not, either it must be deleted, or Notability (web) rewritten.  JohnnyMrNinja  09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.