Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NeoGAF
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable video game message board site. Fails WP:WEB. It should be noted: the article was deleted in the 2nd nomination, but then it was re-created only a few months later. In that time, I highly doubt the site just became notable. Also: shows the article has been deleted 4 times already. I think if this does get deleted again, it needs to be protected from being recreated. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 and salt. This is a recreation of deleted material and about the seventh or eighth time the article has been recreated by the looks of things. Redfarmer (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy salty deleteper nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was restored by, so it cannot count as "recreation of deleted material" because the admin must have had a reason to do so. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article does not fail WP:WEB. Here's an earlier quote on the discussion: "The website has been discussed by notable websites such as The Escapist and Gamasutra. Also of note is its constant use as a source by gaming websites, and its 523,000 Google results. --Teggles (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)". WP:WEB states that coverage of (any of) the site's content by multiple publications presumes its notability. The article has this, it passes WP:WEB, is notable, and should be kept. --Teggles (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is funny, this is telling, pattern emerging... hrm.. Someoneanother 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep None of the sources above are substantial, however NeoGAF is the focus and the site is being referenced around the hardcore videogaming blogsphere (and I mean Kotaku, Joystiq etc). Someoneanother 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am convinced that the totality of sources available makes the forum notable, even though any of the sources alone wouldn't. They do allow for a verifiable article. User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It does seem to be a standard that, when major sources are lacking, numerous minor sources can suffice. I would say that this could be a viable source of notability for this article, though it does need a serious rewrite. Slavlin (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to peek that standard. Without reliable sources, minor blogs cannot be sufficient to prove notability. Otherwise, we should be prepared for the influx of MySpace links that will come just because blogs refer to them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I said standard, as in this is what happens often, not policy or guideline. My experience, as someone that would rather have no article than a crazy and/or bad article, has been that minor sources can supplement when major ones aren't available. I don't mean unreliable ones, like most blogs, just minor, in size or in their own notability. From poking around, I see enough mentions in areas that could be valid from a sourcing perspective. Slavlin (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nomination. Unneeded spam. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not "spam". The subject is notable, as shown above. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Fails notability.Undeath (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * False. This passes notability, which I showed above. Failing notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, either. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, failing notability is the reason for speedy deletion under A7 (non notable group of people, web site, etc). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 clearly states that it is distinct from questions of notability --Teggles (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - continues to fail to meet WP:WEB standards -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does this continue? I have shown above that it passes WP:WEB. Please don't ignore it. --Teggles (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Those speedy deletes are ridiculous, given the contentious nature of notability as mentioned in A7. This is an established gaming forum and is cited as the source for many news stories.  You'll find many sources reporting on NeoGaf material on google news. It might be worth stubbing the article and only presenting the bare bone facts and what's important, things like rival spinoffs, and hosting history should be reconsidered. - hahnch e n 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article does not have any notability claim. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's list of noted members is a claim to notability. It does need sourcing however. - hahnch e n 23:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fails every point of Notability (web), as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it passes one of them, and it only needs to pass one. --Teggles (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one? The fundraising? We are not a news outlet: Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Notability is claimed and established. Speedy delete votes are entirely unjustifiable. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 31 January 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.