Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colony of Gamers


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Colony of Gamers

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

Subect does not meet notability guidelines. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Colony of gamers is not a company or organization. It is a notable website and Internet community serving a unique network of affiliate websites. AniAko (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that it is a notable website. It also doesn't appear to cite any reliable sources. Accordingly, it also fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The website is composed of almost all the former staff of Evil Avatar, quite the notable website. Industry contacts have moved over and an established community has migrated with it.  Simply because the name is new, doesn't mean the established value of the site is (which falls under "Alternate Criteria->Non-commercial organizations".  Deletion of the article at this time will only result in other users adding it again and again, wasting everyone's time.  Regarding "Primary Criteria->second sources", there is currently advertising for the organization going through the process of distribution (I'm not at liberty to discuss details, obviously) as well as the organization being international in scale containing many industry developers. Also falling under "Primary Criteria" is the audio show for the organization, In-Game Chat.  The name change is new effective last week, however we still have the old DNS in place pointing to the new show moniker  You can see various sources for it and the notable guests/coverage performed by our organization (again, many sources do not reflect the new name change): Part of the All Games Radio Network Interviewing Game Developer Jonathan Blow Interviewing David Hayter (of Metal Gear, the X-Men movies and other fame) Charles_Duke - Noted that astronaut Charles Duke was interviewed on the show. Those are links I found in just a minute or two on google, I could form an exhaustive list if you require further sources.  But again, it's rather moot.  The only real issue at question here from what I can tell is that due to the community name change, it takes extra effort to find the notability at this time.  That will change shortly enough.  But removal of this article serves no one (certainly not users utilizing wikipedia for reference).  This site is just as relevant as many others wikipedia has articles for (examples being Giant Bomb or 1UP).  My apologizes if I sound curt on this, I'd rather just not see this turn into a "thing" and would rather nip this misunderstanding in the proverbial "bud".  If there's more notability that you require for me to track down, please let me know.  Note: I also fail to see how "verifiability" was called into question, when checking the wikipedia notes for that.  AniAko is a new member on the site, it would seem silly for that to fall under any type of autobiography (why would someone who didn't know of the site write an article about it?), again I can think of numerous other examples where wikipedia articles were written by people in the same position (and just as in his case, are not directly connected to the organization to be biased, nor is any of the data in the article incorrect, from my reading it over). TrackZero (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability of one organization cannot be established because of the notability of a non-related organization (and the notability of Evil Avatar is questionable in itself, but that is the subject of a different debate). If the Evil Avatar site had simply changed names, that would be a different issue, but the fact is that CoG is a NEW organization, and will need to establish its OWN notability.  If 15 engineers from Microsoft decide to form a new start-up software company, there is no guarantee that the new company will achieve anything notable.  If the 15 engineers have become 500 within a year, and released a major national product, THAT would be notable.  The fact is, Colony of Gamers is simply too new an organization to have established notability.  The site may disappear next month.  When the site has achied the required notability (e.g. independent press coverage in one of the major gaming publications), then someone can create the article.  Also, I believe you failed to note the word except in the description of notable primary sources: the site's own advertising and audio show are explicitly EXCLUDED as reliable primary sources.  Finally, I believe that  should not be involved in this discussion, as he has obvious ties to the organization involved, constituting a significant conflict of interest.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough Dan, but I'll remind you that you brought me into this discussion. Again, you'll be seeing other people creating this article in the future (no, not me), so just be prepared to spend time hounding it.  (Also, Giant Bomb during its launch was a new site as well, yet their wiki article had no issues going up from what I saw.)  And again, In-Game Chat (part of CoG) WAS simply a name change, and all it's sources are valid.TrackZero (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - they aren't Evil Avatar, and as such this isn't just a name change for a web site. As a new site, it has not established notability.  If it happens in the future, that's fine.  I've no objection to recreation with reliable sources when it does establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should In-Game Chat then split off it's own article? As it's notability is established and it is simply a name change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrackZero (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Evil Avatar was made up of the staff as a community and the only reason it existed was the same reason Colony of Gamers exists, the community. Saying we aren't Evil Avatar is completely invalid for that reason. Colony of Gamers will only grow and have much more to add to the wiki as many other start-ups and new websites do.Aggort2 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * — Aggort2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment What WILL happen is not yet known. Wikipedia can only base notability on what HAS happened.  When your predictions come true, feel free to add the article then.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no notability outside a narrow interest community who cannot prove required sources. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:28, 11 October 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.