Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamePark.eu


 * 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. Proto :: ►  13:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

GamePark.eu

 * — (View AfD)

Tagged speedy A7 but contested. Not really sure whether it meets WP:WEB or not, the article does not make a credible case for it but that might just be accidental. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - alexa = 34,667: . MER-C 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They do appear to be on the rise (up 24,692 in traffic) in the last three months; think the article needs to be re-written to reflect notariety of company and quick growth. SkierRMH 01:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This should be considered worthy material for an article due to its current importance and role in the gaming world. GamePark has absorbed a far greater amount of the AoE2 community than Gamespy has. In addition to that, it is the only remaining matchmaker for AoE2 which has rankings, seamless game launching, and natively supports the 1.0e anti-hack patch. For those which feel this article should be deleted, I strongly urge you to first see this article prior to drawing your conclusion. I do however recommend that we possibly rename this article to something such as GamePark_(Gaming), due to the fact there is an also popular Czech version of the site located at gamepark.cz, which should also be included. I understand that some have suggested the article does not meet WP:WEB, however, when a fairly new website plays such a de facto role in something - would deletion truly serve justice? --MaTrIx 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Serving justice is not really one of the goals of Wikipedia. Neither is promoting fairly new websites. If and when this site meets the criteria for notability and verifiabilty, it may easily be recreated. It's not like we're executing it forever. -- Satori Son 14:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep certainly seems like it could be notable enough. Keep for now unless a lack of notability can be shown. Koweja 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to prove a negative. MER-C 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 despite contestation, article does not assert notability of any kind. Koweja's vote for keep unless a lack of notability can be shown is wrong-headed and discredited by wikipedia procedures. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't agree with speedying this, as article does attempt to demonstrate the notability of its subject. But there are no reliable sources for this notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it fails WP:NOTE at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. Annamonckton 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Usefull page about a fast rising company. Just because its not based in the USA doesnt make it non-notable. --Hotentot 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * — Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.
 * The nominator is also not from the USA. WP:USEFUL does not trump WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, decent Alexa rank, but I'm not finding any WP:RS from third-party sources indicating notability in terms of WP:WEB. Note: my recommendation has nothing to do with it not being in the USA; further, the burden of proof to establish notability falls on those recommending to keep, not the other way around from those recommending deletion. -- Kinu t /c  21:00, 28 December 2006 (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.