Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dueling Network (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   no consensus. Between a nomination suggesting deletion, Hellknowz suggestion merging content to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game due to minimal notability, and one other participant intent on the article being kept but having trouble finding sources... I have little choice but to close this as "no consensus" but I recommend continuing the research and potential merge discussion on the talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dueling Network
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 00:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever can be reliably sourced to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. Advertising or not, as far as WP:GNG is concerned we have two one reliable WP:VG/RS sources covering the game: and . The coverage is not really in-depth and barely scrapes the notability bar -- definitively not enough for a stand-alone article, but enough for a few well-source sentences. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More often than not are blogs not considered to be reliable sources, what would leave you only with Kotaku. The Banner talk 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, my bad. I swear the original link in the search results wasn't to the blog. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think merging this game into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game article would be good.This is unofficial game simulation of mentioned card game.We have 2 reliable 3rd party sources : 1st and 2nd ref.References number 3 and 5 are taken from official forum of Dueling Network and they are only facts (like number of registred members and formula for elo calculation).This site is very notable since it has 3.5 millions of users and is most popular online game of highest selling trading card game.This article can not be considered to be advertising since it contains only facts.I have found 2 more reliable 3rd party sources, but it was made on sites that are on wiki's blacklist.I think the first 2 references are reliable enough to make this site's notability visible.Also this article can be added to stub.-Midnight modding (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, more often than not, blogs and forums are not considered reliable sources. And of course the "Wikibin The Recycle Bin of Wikipedia!" is clearly no reliable source at all. Beside that, it is quite difficult to see the Dueling Network-forum as an independent source, don't you think? The Banner talk 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "..but it was made on sites that are on wiki's blacklist." I think that sums up that they are in fact not reliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If some site is on wiki's blacklist, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that every content from that site is bad. Forum of Dueling Network is not an independent source, but is used to citate facts only.Also, one 3rd party source can be enough for references.There are many articles that are much less notable than Dueling Network and it would really be shame if we wouldn't add it to the wiki.And as I said,we can make this like stub if not regular article.-Midnight modding (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All articles have to comply with the same notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG, this is what Wikipedia's "notability" is and not any other interpretation of the word. One reference is not enough, regardless of the article being a stub or not. Stub does not in any way mean notability standards are somehow different, it just means the article hasn't been expanded yet. As for other articles, someone will get to them eventually and either nominate for deletion or add references. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

After some additional research I found probably the most relevant sources of all: http://www.trademarkia.com/dueling-network-85322818.html In it ,there is described type of Dueling Network's work, official release date and other relevant informations. And http://dig.do/duelingnetwork.com Midnight modding (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that the sources have to be in-depth (as explained at once again linked WP:GNG). It is not enough to show something merely exists or has a presence. You have to show that third-party sources have given it in-depth coverage. Directory entries, ranking information, company profiles, trademark listings, patent entires, etc. are not suitable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As in the previous AfD, still lacks WP:RELIABLE to establish significance. JNW (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We could keep this article on official facts only.I understand it lacks third party reliable infos, but I also know it is notable enough to be put in wiki.So I'm suggesting to classify it as low-importance video game article with only basic and official informations like it was done in some articles. Midnight modding (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem very intent to not actually read WP:N/WP:GNG. "Notability" on Wikipedia does not mean what you think it means. As said before, it is not sufficient to say WP:ITSNOTABLE, you have to show how it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To sum up...list of this article's rs is: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DuelingNetwork ; http://www.trademarkia.com/dueling-network-85322818.html ; http://kotaku.com/5919178/yu+gi+oh-bam-might-be-the-best-incarnation-of-the-card-game-ive-played ; https://www.konami.com/ Midnight modding (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only actual WP:RS from those is from Kotaku. TVTropes is user-edited and not reliable, Trademarkia is not in-depth, Konami doesn't lead anywhere. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)



Found one more source http://deck-list.com/yugioh-online-dueling-network/ .Midnight modding (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a reliable source, it's a 1-person website/blog. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though it is 1 person website, it is made by somewhat reliable journalist.Also, added some potentially reliable reviews: http://gamervortex.net/port/play-yugioh-online-free/, http://www.ign.com/blogs/pdw2kx/2012/01/26/pd-reviews-duelingnetwork-com (blog, but made by somewhat reliable journalist), http://www.geekinside.us/tag/dueling-network/ , http://www.dotcomol.com/2013/05/www-duelingnetwork-com-online-dueling-network-card-game.html ,http://dig.do/duelingnetwork.com (contains responsible person advisory-refering to Summary part), http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/rulebook/index.html (not in-depth for the subject, but describing the rules), http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/delancey03_blog/archive/2011/06/16/playing-with-you-39-re-nostalgia-a-dueling-network-review.aspx (blog made by somewhat high reputation member), http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/limited/ (same for rulebook, detailed rules which are followed on site)Midnight modding (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, my friend. Some of your sources are plain nonsense, like the trademarkia and statscrop ones. I am sorry to say, but the more sources you add, the more unreliable becomes the article. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I was adding new sources and forgot to remove those.I'll clean it up.Midnight modding (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * 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.