Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com


 * 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. Case for notability not convincing. —Doug Bell talk 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant advertising. The website is not significant enough to warrant its own article. G.hilmarsson 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.hilmarsson (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 08:18:32
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gametz community is not insignificant. It has been integral in the trading community since it's inception over 10 years ago and has laid clear the groundwork for some higher profile trading community websites and community websites in general. The active user base is somewhere around 3,000 users. How is interest determined? If a website is perdominately featured in mutiple issues of a high readership magazine like gamepro, does that not illustrate a very real interest? AtaruMoroboshi 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic, pretty much all of the pages in the Community Websites category should be deleted. All of these are sites of thousands of users.  So, by your logic, a site with a few thousand users is advertising, but CNN and Netflix is worthy simply due to a larger user base?  How are pages for those sites any less guilty of being advertising?  More on point, I notice a page for Gamefly, a commercial game rental site.  This page has been written to document the site's history and community, not primarily as advertising. Dstumme 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a web directory. Furthermore, there is not enough interest in this site to warrant this article. Sites such as CNN or eBay are legitimate considerations given their significance. GameTZ, on the other hand, is simply a small online trading community. For these same reasons, we have to delete articles regarding unknown actors, musicians and so forth who generally lack the sufficient interest to otherwise be relevant to an encyclopedia. Please take the time to review Wiki policy. G.hilmarsson 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (on a side note, I'm having trouble editing Wikipedia lately, so my signature often does not display. I also had difficulty completing the AfD process correctly. I need to check my browser settings to see if anything is interfering)
 * Keep as GameTZ has been featured in syndicated TV news spots (I think on CBS, but I could be wrong...it's been a few years since I saw the spot), has been covered in newspaper newspaper articles, and featured in magazine articles as well. It's the grand-daddy of all the various trading sites, and has outlasted almost all of them. Comparing GameTZ to Netflix, ebay, and similar sites is like comparing horses to tomatoes: they aren't even the same thing, so any comparison is invalid. When compared to other game/movie/music/book trading sites, GameTZ is one of the largest (if not the largest) out there. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - after 10 minutes of searching I found the USA Today article, which is only a trivial mention. Accordingly, fails WP:N for lack of multiple non-trivial third party sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - We are in the process of gathering other references. The GamePro magazine reference was recently added.  I can also add a link to the video clip of the nationally syndicated news story that was done about game trading sites that heavily referenced GameTZ, but I wasn't sure how to cite that.   The story ran on multiple stations across the country a couple of years back.  There have been mentions in other gaming magazines occasionally over the years as well, but I'd need to do some more digging to find them.  In the mean time, I'd like to see the article hang around while sources are added. Dstumme 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made all the references look pretty. If anyone can find any other references, please either post them here, on the talk page, or let me know and I'll add them. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough notoriety. 72.150.232.174 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notoriety" is not a criteria for inclusion, nor is lack of it a criteria of exclusion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Notwithstanding the various comments made above (some biased and some not) the obvious fact remains that this article is in essence an advertisement for a commercial concern, and, as such, has no place in wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There are only two online written references which are not from gametz.com - Two articles which briefly mention that the site exists and one usenet posting. IMHO, this is pushing the bounds of notability beyong their limit. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise but as it stands I'll go for delete. -- Qarnos 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The notability requirements do not require that any of the references be online references. With being mentioned twice in a popular gaming magazine, and having a TV spot (a recording of that spot is linked in the reference, BTW), the notability requirements are clearly fulfilled even without the other references you mention in your comment. Keep in mind that TV spot was aired on stations all across the United States. I actually saw it on my local news, though I didn't think to record it at the time. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the notability requirements... but limited coverage on the web is a big red flag. Also, not everything which appears on TV should have an encyclopedia article - otherwise we could have an article on every minor news story (hey, it was on TV, right?). -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that every news story on TV deserves an article. The news story being used as a reference certainly doesn't deserve an article itself. However, the news story is perfectly acceptable as a reference used to meet the notability requirements for this article. The notability requirements say nothing about references needing to be notable enough to warrant an article themselves, only that such coverage is good enough to establish notability for the subject of that coverage. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I forgot to mention that the magazine coverage and the TV spot alone make the article meet the primary notability criterion: "...it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * non-trivial being the key word. The USA Today article gives the site one sentence. -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll hasten to add that gamestz was not the subject of the USA today article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qarnos (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm referring to the GamePro and TV coverage. The USA Today coverage is incidental to those. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:11, 9 February 2007 (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.