Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gry-Online


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gry-Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion of a "group of Polish websites" for video games. Some of these gamesites got some minor prizes, but each of them hardly notable. No significant independent sources about the "group". Staszek Lem (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but the article NEEDS TO INCLUDE LINKS IN SOURCES (and generally be fixed in some other ways too). Here's the Polish article: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gry-Online (since 2007). --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure nobody is uselessly confused, can you specify whether you oppose deletion or oppose the article? AfD !votes are typically "keep" or "delete". Also, do you think you could do some translating work on the Polish article towards the English one, to incorporate sources? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion, hut these non-linked sources are just ridicalous (the links are in Polish article alright). --Niemti (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Give it some time - Seriously, I think that no matter what the reasons are, I believe sending an article to AfD one day after creation is never an appropriate option. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvidrim, notability isn't about the article, it's about the subject. Extra time won't change this. You don't even need to look at the article to judge the question, as it depends on secondary sources, although it's a good idea in case you overlooked something not mentioned in the AfD discussion.
 * However, if the author feels the article was nominated too quickly, WP:MERCY suggests: "If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space." Agyle (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain. In Top 100 most popular websites in Poland, according to Alexa. (107th). Outside this I am not seeing anything like mainstream, reliable sources to back this article up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - @Staszek Lem Do you mean that the biggest Polish gaming site is hardly notable or do you mean that the awards it received are not very well-known? Are you using quotation marks when referring to it as a group of Polish websites for a specific reason? Gry-Online manages several sites and it is definitely a group. It is characteristic for gaming sites that other media hardly ever mention them. Take GameSpot article for comparison - references show mostly the site itself as the source. If it is OK for them, why is it not OK for Gry-Online? The links will be corrected immediately and I will try to fix other things you mentioned as fast as I can (I consider Polish html editing panel much more user-friendly than this text editor). WildCamel (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia general notability requirements, as well as specific requirements Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability (web). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WildCamel, while you were asking Lem, I think I can provide some helpful answers. (1) Lem meant both that the gamesites that comprise Gry-online are hardly notable (in the Wikipedia sense of notable, explained at WP:N and in the links he mentioned, not in the common sense of the word), and that the awards the sites received are not very well known. I don't know whether that's true, but those are two questions that people should investigate in this discussion. (2) The quotation marks around "group of Polish websites" signify that the phrase is quoted from the Gry-Online article, and not Lem's own description. I was unable to verify this description, after a cursory attempt, so would also have used quotes. (3) Comparisons to other deficient Wikipedia articles does not justify deficiencies in this article. The Gamespot article is terribly sourced, and it is not OK; anyone is free to mark it up with citation requests or simply delete vast tracts of unverifiable information. Reliance on primary, non-independent sources is fine for certain purposes, but it should never form the sole basis for an article for reasons of verifiability, and such sources do nothing to establish notability of a topic. Agyle (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re gamespot argument: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid deletion argument. Also, I tagged it with tl notability. Feel free to AfD it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Have not (yet) found any significant coverage from an independent reliable source, so fails to meet notability standards on that basis. This is a complex AfD subject to consider, as it means searching for coverage of the gry-online.pl website, the GRY-Online S.A. company, four other websites run by the company, and the Polish Webstar awards accrued by gry-online.pl. Searching is complicated by what common generic terms gry and gry online (i.e. "game" and "online game") are in Polish websites (e.g. this Komputer Świat article with "gry online" in the title, with no relation to gry-online); the same issue arises searching for the term "gameplay" in their "gameplay.pl" site.
 * 1) Gry-online.pl. I couldn't find any significant independent reliable source coverage about the website.
 * 2) GRY-Online S.A. I found only cursory mentions in database listings (e.g. here, here and here), perhaps based on government-required filings or industry directory submissions by the company. They are also mentioned in an exhibitor guide at E3, but that is not independent coverage (they paid to exhibit, and provided their own descritpion).
 * 3) Gamepressure.com, tvgry.pl, gameplay.pl, and sklep.gry-online.pl. I looked extensively for independent RS coverage of gamepressure.com, since it's an English-language site, and found nothing. I looked less exhaustively for coverage of the other sites (particularly gameplay.pl due to the false positives for the term "gameplay"), and was also unable to find any independent RS coverage of the sites.
 * 4) Awards: While WP:WEB suggests winning "a well-known and independent award" may indicate notability, it does not remove the need for independent reliable sources. I also haven't yet seen anything to suggest the Webstar awards are particularly well known or "independent". I found no independent news coverage about the awards (this could very well be due to using English-language searches). Award participants pay the award organization a rather substantial US$500 ("1195 PLN + 23% VAT") entry fee, so they do not consider all Polish websites. The previous year's winners are invited to vote for the current year's entrants for the Webstar Akademii award, creating "independence" questions, while internet users are allowed to vote once per day for the Webstar Internautów (kind of a "internet user's choice") award, which is a notoriously fraud-susceptible polling method (and again, only paid submissions are considered). There seem to be around 150 awards (40ish categories each with 3-4 awards including both internet, academy, and distinction awards), so it has the appearance of being a bit of a "pay for publicity" business, although admittedly that occurs with many other well known for-profit awards (e.g. the Webby Awards or Pulitzer prizes, although Pulitzer prizes in journalism carry a more nominal $50 submission fee).
 * A Polish-speaking reviewer would be better able to search for reliable sources; I used google.pl a bit, but mostly used English-language Google which de-prioritizes Polish search results. I looked at the Polish Gry-Online Wikipedia entry, and it seems like this article is basically a translation of that article, with the same sources (i.e. 30ish links to gry-online.pl). Agyle (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - My Polish isn't very good, but it looks to me like there is a high probability that the topic is notable. Both Polish and English VG/RS consider it a reliable source and this is backed up by a Google Scholar search where there appear to be over 500 references to the website. Obviously WP:RS != WP:N, but the two are often linked. Checking through some of the VG/RS sources I can see that GRY-OnLine has been represented by Mariusz Klamra in numerous high-profile Polish gaming conferences like the 2012 Game Industry Trends (see 1, 2, 3) and Poznań Game Arena 2009 (see 4, 5, 6). This article cries out for assistance from a Polish-speaker who can conduct a proper examination of the sources because the evidence seem to suggest that this is a notable topic. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that, but want to point out that very few of the 562 Google Scholar results are independent sources that mention/reference the company or website. About 350 of them are to a Polish Academy of Sciences mining journal that's trying to game the search engines with an invisible (grey text on same-gray background) miniscule text ad/html link at the bottom of every journal article. It's spamming for an unrelated gaming site, saying "Gry online - najlepsze darmowe granie na gry.com.pl" ("Online games - the best free playing gry.com.pl"). Here is one example; one way of seeing it is to select all text and look for something you can't read in the very lower left, then magnify the web page a thousand percent. Google Scholar also includes PDF documents whether they're "scholarly" or not, and a few dozen results are the company's own publications published in PDF format, or other non-RS PDFs. I think most of the remaining references use the phrase "gry online" ("game online") generically, unrelated to the company, or do not contain the phrase at all (Google tries to anticipate the results you'd find interesting whether even when it doesn't contain the search terms you entered). Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Maybe it got some notability in Poland (but even that is uncertain), but I fail to see any added value of this article on the English-language wikipedia. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on the continuing uncertainty of its notability, but whether it's useful (has "added value") is very subjective, and I don't think is an accepted reason for article deletion. Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Weak delete per Agyle's analysis of available sources, mostly. As he says, this is a complicated AFD and I'm inclined to think this is a subject that may become notable in the future. If that is the case we should save creation for some point in the future rather than creating it now in the hope that it might one day become notable. It's a borderline case, though, and some of the keep contributors make very valid points.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Agyle's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:05, 18 June 2014 (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.