Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF (4th 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The website doesn't seem to have much notability other than the fact that its just a forum with a fanatical userbase. The site doesn't rank that highly in Alexa compared to more professional English sites like 1UP, IGN, and GameSpot. So I don't know why this article this even exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, supposed references are all either brief mentions, blog-type stuff, or both. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep In most circumstances I would agree that forums are not notable, and in fact I almost nominated this myself a few months back. But then I did some research and found some decent sources, including those from G4, The Escapist, and a very substantial article from 1UP.com . The article details the impact the site has on the gaming industry and includes interviews with several developers and designers talking about the site, including David Jaffe, Todd Howard and Soren Johnson among others. Maybe two of those references are from smaller blog-style sites, but I'd say that three substantial sources from reputable industry outlets would meet the first criterion of WP:WEB, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. .  Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most of the mentions are indeed trivial, but the substantial article from 1up.com that Gene93k posted was enough assert notability. Themfromspace (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Like the 1UP article says, the userbase isn't merely "fanatical" but actually includes industry insiders. And while Alexa ratings aren't really part of WP:WEB, in this case the relatively low rating can be explained by the fact that the board being so industry focused. The larger gaming sites the nominator is comparing neogaf to are aimed at a general public interested in the games themselves, while the neogaf discussions often revolve around the industry behind the games, a more narrow field of interest. Titney (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom brings absolutely nothing new to the table that hasn't been thwarted in the last AFD discussion, and throws in an irrelevant WP:NOTBIGENOUGH rationale for good measure. SashaNein (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a number of decent sources and nothing has changed since the last AFD that would result in a deletion this time around. Kagetto (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — notwithstanding the previous AFDs (just focusing on this one), it certainly seems like notability has now been established well enough for inclusion. Keep in mind that alexa is not a good sole indicator of inclusion or lack thereof. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's not forget that Denis Dyack, founder of Silicon Knights and creator of Too Human, stated in an article about how NeoGAF is the worst kind of forum. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:45, 9 December 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.