Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references. Most of the google results are just dictionary and abbreviation results. -- ☣  Anar chyte  ☣ 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  -- ☣  Anar  chyte  ☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ☣  Anar  chyte  ☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: The page the article refers to has not been updated since 2006 -- 9 years. In the lifespan of parody, that makes it Marley's ghost. That said, the site generated buzz when it lived -- sufficient buzz to sail pass notability guidelines. Therefore, it is possible that the encyclopedia entry could be kept as a complete rewrite to be a historical entry, except that Wikipedia is not the Wayback Machine. Is it within the purview of Wikipedia to memorialize parody sites that gathered a lot of conversation and clicks for a bit of time? We would need indications that this has generated a historical echo, I'd think. Again, this is a weak delete vote. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability isn't temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It received just enough coverage, and Eliot Spitzer recommending it to parents as a real organization even made international headlines  —Мандичка YO 😜 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed, "notability" is not temporary. Topicality, however, is, and topicality can create vast amounts of independent coverage for an Internet-related event. Therefore, one has to ask what sort of object it is that's under discussion. One might even suppose there are different "notability" guidelines for different sorts of object. So, for topical parody, what is the life of the object? How is its success determined? Not, of course, that I would know anything about parody or the august notability standards. I'm sure consulting them eliminates all contention. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing more than passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I also went through the list of refs in the current article and found a bunch of mentions but the short CNN article was the only thing close to sig cov. Even with the whole Spitzer mixup, no real coverage came of the event, especially of the hoax organization itself. I'd support a redirect to Video game controversies if there was a relevant place to add a sentence or two, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar   21:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone cited WP:NOTTEMPORARY above, but that's just the thing – there's no evidence this organization was notable at any point. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence this is notable or comes close to passing any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2015 (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.