Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This 3-year-old organization appears to fail WP:CORP inclusion criteria. The sources are either primary sources, trivial mentions, or directory listings. No significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any sources that clearly discuss the topic. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your classification of some of the sources. The Chicagoly Magazine article is, in my mind, not "trivial", as the article goes into some detail regarding the CGAA meeting, even if it is not the main topic of the article. I do agree that the VICE article probably qualifies as an incidental mention.


 * As for the two other independent sources, which I assume you categorise as "directory listings", again I have to disagree. They are articles describing how to get help - and giving specific suggestions for where to get this help. In both cases, these suggestions include text written by the article author, giving further information on the groups mentioned. The fact that the relevant part of these sources are in list form does not make the source a "lists of similar organizations". Especially the Project Know article is interesting, since it lists both an author and an editor for the article.


 * Finally, I present you with an additional source. Quite similar to the Chicagoly article, it goes into even more detail about the specifics of CGAA: http://shoeleathermagazine.com/june-2015/time-for-e-hab/ . I have added it to the article.


 * Bottom line: CGAA has been covered more than incidentally in several online magazine article. Several pages dealing with addiction are specifically including CGAA in their recommendations for where to get help.


 * However, after creating the article (and writing the above parts of this comment), I became aware of WP:COI. Since I am a member of CGAA, I have now declared a Conflict of Interest. Since this is a quite weak COI - I have no formal position nor financial interest in CGAA, I do not believe that it should disqualify me from contributing to the article. I do however realize that my association with the subject may have influenced my judgement when it comes to whether the page should exist in the first place. For this reason I change my recommendation:


 *  Keep AbstainNisJørgensen (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chicagolymag source devotes about half a paragraph and a couple of trivial mentions to the group, in a much longer article. That completely fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as required. The other sources are also trivial mentions. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The organization may be notable someday, but it isn't yet, and until that happens, it can't have a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - to video game addiction. I'm not even sure the creator of an article can vote keep in their own AFD anyway, but regardless, I don't think it's notable. While it is mentioned in reliable references, they fail the "significant" criterion, as it's usually just a passing mention of about a paragraph or so. Therefore it fails WP:ORGDEPTH. It already has a mention in the aforementioned article, so redirection there is the best option.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI,, yes, article creators are allowed to !vote in an AFD of an article they created, though they are supposed to identify themselves as article creators, so they can factor that role into their stance and the overall discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  18:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Vice article is definitely not a substantial mention. The two paragraphs in ChicagoLYMag (if that's a reliable source) does not constitute the coverage necessary to satisfy the GNG. ShoeLeather does not strike me as reliable as it does not appear to have editorial control. I'm fine with a mention in video game addiction, but it needs to hew closely to the Vice's mention (rather than use primary sources). Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, delete and redirect to video game addiction is my suggestion. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG. No need for a redirect / merge, as this content would be undue there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2017 (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.