Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Game Museum


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. There is enough support from established editors here to hang on to this article. A good sign of this is that several of those who would originally have deleted came to revise their opinions later. Those who did not, it is reasonable to assume, are not persuaded but they do not have the consensus with them. -Splash talk 22:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Museum
Interesting but non-notable and self promoting. Main contributor User_talk:ReyVGM was warned repeatedly for linkspamming this web site on computer game articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick link check on google shows very few external links. It seems other sites tend to link to the content of VGM rather than the web site being a portal in its own right. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional.  --Mmeinhart 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Also, the author managed to bloat this delete page :( --Hetar 08:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply being linked to does not establish notability, and neither does being mentioned in passing by other websites, including IGN and the NY Times "online diary". No evidence of "multiple non-trivial published works" as in WP:WEB. Melchoir 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love the site, but it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria set out in WP:WEB.  Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a web directory.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clean-up, then keep -- Simon Cursitor 12:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ikkyu2 Withdrawn. No vote. But, please, fix up the text. This page is impossible to read. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly notable. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Giving this a  Weak Keep until I find some substantial evidence . Thirty seconds of Google+Alexa digging notes GameFAQs links to it for screenshots (example). (edit: Found one of the joystiq articles) (Edit again: Clearly I need to read the arguments before I vote. This is way above and beyond most of the crap websites that are even borderline on AfD. That a "staff member" is editting the article is irrelevant to the deletion argument) Nifboy 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You think a link from GameFAQs makes something notable? Melchoir 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A link, singular, no. But essentially being an offsite reference for screenshots? Hell yes. Nifboy 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no quantity of links, singular or plural, that can help us write an encyclopedic article. Melchoir 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is not inherent. Justifications are good enough.  Request that ReyVGM goes back and tidies up this discussion to take up less space, though! Vizjim 15:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Change vote to neutral after the latest cleanup. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, but notabilty well established. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable site, fails to meet WP:WEB, and you made my head hurt by bloating the crap out of this page. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep My vote disappeared? The site has notability. Thomas Buckwalter 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site." Rey mentioned that it was in NY Times and two european magazines(1 coming in April). Also links from other major websites could be seen as advertising. The only problem I see that goes against this document is the fact it isn't linked in the actual article...but if Rey had put links in the article people would have said he was bloading or advertising...--Revo 13:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this userid was created yesterday and the only edits until today have been to this afd. Not that I'd accuse anyone of vote stacking or worse. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: I used to have an account but forgot the username/password and I don't usually edit things on here, I come to Wiki usually to look up info(since it is primarily a encyclopedia) and when I saw this arguement I made a new account. I promise that I am not anyone else who has voted and do not have the same IP as anyone who has currently voted(I believe I might have made a comment as an IP before making this account)...--Revo 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Vanity about non-notable website. -- Krash (Talk) 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Are you kidding me?  This site gets referenced all the time on US video game forums.  It's an enormous repository of screenshots, promo scans, etc.  This is probably the dumbest AfD I've read yet.  Why not go ask on any of the multitude of major video game forums whether it's notable.  As a long-time admin of a video game website myself, I cannot believe I'm reading this (and no, I haven't made a page for my forum).  The only think I would think as tolerable is a rewrite if there's promo-like problems with it.  If you have GameFAQs or GameSpot, this is also notable as a video game site.  Just because the majority of people who troll these AfD lists aren't ardent video gamers shouldn't create a crusade against our articles (although I have never editted this article myself).  Thank you!  Bobak 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. ReyVGM 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but attempt to clean up. Reycount 10:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Too important to the video game community.  AyrtonSenna
 * Keep Discordance 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote Debate influencing? VGM Board Post about Wiki Article I am not sure what this means. I am not voting since I do not have an opinion on the matter.  Though I have had an article deleted on me and it does sting a bit.  --170.20.11.116 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I added the template just in case someone thinks they can ballot stuff. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be careful on the debate influencing accusations. Some of these votes are legit members. The insistence on assume good faith should swing both ways ;-) -- Bobak 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: The notice doesn't imply bad-faith. I've found in cases where new users are likely to turn up, there is no harm in using it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Notability is questionable, but I'm leaning keep, cleanup, and warn ReyVGM that his behavior is unacceptable. --InShaneee 04:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What behavior if I may ask? Read that thread without prejudice and you will notice that I never told anyone to come here and vote and after the voting started I never told anyone to come here and help. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because out of all those users only 2 already registered users decided to come and help with positive comments. There was no voting yet when I made that post.
 * "Go in and defend it" are your exact words, along with "why aren't the others helping". Aside from that, you've been rude to other users on this page more than once. --InShaneee 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not massively popular, so I'd only go on "weak keep" on grounds that in this case the site can't really hurt, and I think a website is definitely notable enough if I've run into it several times based on references outside of Wikipedia; I'm bumping it to Keep on grounds that this is seems to be an editor squabble and when articles go on AfD over this, nobody's having fun in the end. It's a bad way to start debate. Or at least that impression I was left with with the debate below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: This page has been refactored for legibility. Sheesh. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 18:25, 3 March 2006 (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.