Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Gaming Classic


 * 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The result was   Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), nomination was withdrawn as shown in the discussion below. In addition, the consensus has been to keep the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Midwest Gaming Classic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of reliable sources in the article and zero Google News hits would indicate this is not a notable event. Addionne (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A google search for "Midwest Gaming Glassic" gives over 9000 hits, so I think that alone passes notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Mike (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 July 2008


 * Comment Number of Google hits is not a metric for determining notability, see: GOOGLEHITS. swa  q  18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On the contrary, it also states "can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is". Being a non-industry (I.E. not E3 type) fan based convention, it clearly demonstrates notability among the show's target group.  As do the plethora of blog, podcast, and other coverage. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but that alone does not show notability. No one will agree on what number of hits should be the threshold for non-notable vs notable.  Notability is established by independent reliable sources.  I'm not saying that this particular article should be deleted, as I haven't looked at the references, just that the number of search results can not be used alone as a metric for notability.  swa  q  20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per a few GNews hits in the archives. Clearly gets independent coverage. Three are even a couple of mentions in Google Books. Frank  |  talk  19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - While it certainly needs reference improvement, the convention is long running, currently the largest fan based video game convention in the US, and well covered. Coverage was easy to find with a simple google search, here's a few - here, here, here, andhere, among the 9,060 hits that include extensive blog and forum hits (which denote notability among video game fan base).  There's also been coverage and mentions in long running magazines like GameInformer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Pingame Journal, Gameroom magazine, as well as with sites like Twin Galaxies (who also attended and spoke at this year's show regarding King of Kong, and GamaSutra. The IDGA also held a meeting at the show in the past and lists it on its Game Preservation SIG/Resources listing.  This article simply needs a reference improvement, which is certainly long overdue. I also find it ironic this was brought up for AFD immediately after it was mentioned to said AFD caller in another releated AFD.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I did nominate this after you mentioned it in a previous AfD discussion for another article. However, offering this event as a justification for another article opens this article up for critique as well, I think.  I also wonder if you should disclude yourself from both arguments as one of the event's organizers.  (See WP:COI)  Addionne (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its an issue as long as I'm not self referencing, which I'm clearly not with the links provided above. Nor am I COI editing here, which the COI page is in reference to, i.e. the editing of content in the actual article (i.e. controversial content).  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion This article prominently features your name, website (both in the lead paragraph!), and includes links to more than one website owned/maintained by you. According to the COI page, you have a conflict of interest when...
 * Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors.
 * Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles. Addionne (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which also states "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." and simply further establishes the already known fact that the article needs references. Likewise "avoid, OR exercise great caution when involved in..." with regards to AFD discussions.  It does not preclude me from being involved in this AFD discussion, nor does it preclude me from voting here and providing the 3rd party links I provided above.  In actuality, it simply comes off as a cheap tactic on your part (the person who filed the AFD in the first place) to remove a keep vote and silence any insight I may be able to contribute to the matter.  This is not the article itself, its an AFD discussion pertaining to the article.  It also assumes I'm a bad faith editor not capable of being neutral, when in fact I'm a long term contributor here and a very active member of the same video games project as your self as well.   --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Marty - I totally concur that COI is not a reason to delete, and I expect any closing admin will know that. However, I would add that because of your COI, you're probably best off letting the facts speak for themselves. You've provided some info here; if you spend too much time and effort being the only one arguing for keeping the article, I think you risk having the opposite effect. If it's notable, that will come out in the discussion. Also, I'd like to point out that blog and myspace hits and the like do establish popularity...but do not establish notability. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And, if my comments seem a little strong, bear in mind I have already expressed a keep opinion in this discussion, so I'm certainly not trying to argue against you; rather just suggesting a bit less...enthusiasm. These things usually run several days; give the system a chance to work!  Frank  |  talk  20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank, I completely understand what you're talking about. I've said what I have to say on the matter here, and leave it to my capable peers in the video game project and Wikipedia itself to decide the fate of the article.  If it is decided to keep it, I'd be happy to work with whoever wants to be involved in bringing this article up to par for 3rd party references and neutrality. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The convention is, for a non-industry gathering, a very large event. It has gained some mainstream and gaming media coverage. The article needs sources, yes. However, I don't think that the subject is so devoid of reliable sources as to revert to AfD. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with the above. There is coverage at least to show notability does exist to an extent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I found several sources with a quick google search. Asher196 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have left this on the article's talk page.  Those articles alone from reliable sources establish a notability for the event (certainly not one-sentence mentions).  What the article needs is a rewrite as it resembles more like a chronology than an encyclopaedia piece at the moment.  I do hope the primary contributors to the article heed this AfD and the contents brought up to rewrite the article to avoid another such incidence.  Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by Nominator Addionne (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someoneanother 12:52, 29 July 2008 (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.