Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Gamers First

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Video Gamers First
No notability established, appears to be an advert veiled as an article. Nothing links here. --EvilZak 22:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete drini &#9742; 22:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Zeipher17 Talk 22:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Could you give the VfD crowd the reason why Wikipedia should keep this article because you're the creator? Why is this site "notable?" According to the website, it is like one of the many video game fan websites out there on the web that doesn't have the internet traffic compare to Gamespot, GameFAQs or IGN. --Chill Pill Bill 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the lack of notability. Give a big round of applause to Zeipher17 for voting Keep on his article without anything to back up and Myusername1 for vandalizing this VFD. Nestea 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Again. Nestea 01:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And again. Nestea 02:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And again. Somebody ban this guy, please. Nestea 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability K1Bond007 05:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, website with an alexa >200, 000, not unique in anyway and a cynical person might think this was added to increase revenue from crappy popups --nixie 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NeoJustin 02:52 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * As the owner of VGF, I will remain neutral (I'm assuming this is allowed). I was considering voting delete to blend in, but I'll resist that temptation for the time being. I'm not voting keep because keep votes apparently aren't particularly welcome in this discussion (looks like at least one was deleted and one was blasted for being the same as two delete votes, which nobody mentioned), and I don't particularly care whether this article remains or not anyway. If I did care, I'd PM our 50 most active forum members and have them descend on this topic. It's pretty apparent where this vote is headed, since most of the people who have voted thus far appear to be either new to the Internet or just don't know that much about video game sites. That said, I have a few comments about the site (I'll try to be brief... apologies if this is too long).

VGF has a fairly long (8 year) history. It started out as a single site that was updated on an excessively frequent basis, at least twice daily every single day (all original content). The community, which remains a strong focus to this day, was a large part of that. In a short time, it was built up to a very respectable stature in the video game site genre. As it became more popular, it evolved into a network. This was very successful, and VGF soon became one of the top video game networks in the world, reaching 25 million monthly page views at its height and owning several of well known sites. This allowed it to partner with all the major ad networks while I personally became among the most prominent voices in the online advertising community as one of the most respected members of Geekvillage and Gethighforums, as well as a writer for Adbility. Granted, this was only 1/4th of IGN's numbers at the time (though certainly respectable by any standards and on par with others like GX - Gamers.com, FGN, and Gamefan), but we didn't have $1 billion (with a b) to flush down to the toilet either. To the contrary, I was dirt poor when I started the site.

Unfortunately, a couple years ago as the bubble was fully bursting, without the financial backing the major corporations had (and even they all either collapsed or had to be bought out to survive), it became necessary to make cutbacks, including deliberately killing off traffic. As a result, I'll acknowledge that VGF is not nearly as large as it once was or could have been. Still, it's unfair to claim it's unknown. Also, since we update on a regular basis and have an active community, I fail to see how it's just an advertisemnt. And it's just silly to claim that nothing links to VGF, even though the number of links is perhaps not particularly large. Regardless, what I would like to stress is this... If you want to visit the site, you're welcome to. If you don't want to visit it, who cares? But at least try doing more than 30 seconds of research based on clicking one link, visiting Alexa (inaccurate spyware that at one time ranked itself #3), or getting one unobtrusive popup here or there (oh no, it's the end of the world!) before bashing it. Ssacobie 20:28 June 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that your first line reads "As the owner of VGF, I will remain neutral", yet your article (which is much bigger than the VFD'd article) is completely in the direction of keeping the article. It's good that you didn't have your forumgoers descend on this topic, because then it wouldn't make a difference. (sockpuppetry) As for the keep votes, one was made with no reason to back it up, and the other was deleted because along the way, the voter vandalised other votes (read the history of this VFD, please). I doubt those three paragraphs save the article from below the notability bar, but it was a good try. Nestea 01:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say that a part of this site's network already has an article on Wikipedia. Neglected Mario Characters is part of a hosted site on this network. As for the advertisment claim, I don't work for the network and wouldn't benefit from it in any way. Zeipher17 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.