Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Video Game Museum

Redirected. --Thomas Buckwalter 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Extended Discussion
I noticed that the Video Game Museum wiki has been scheduled for deletion.

It's true that I was warned twice about "spamming" a while ago, but I was new and I didn't really knew the rules and guidelines were so deep. I saw each game page had links to other websites containing information and images about the game, so I thought "Hey, maybe I could put the game ending links here" All links were directly to the game ending, it wasn't like I was linking to the main page either. I also don't know why was it wrong when I did it since I've seen other users link to the VGMuseum on a few game pages and those haven't been removed. There is a game that links directly to a FAQ I did on gamefaqs and that wasn't removed either.

I do not own the VGMuseum, nor am I the webmaster or the creator of the website. The wiki on VGMuseum is not self promotion since I only mention myself as being a staff member. All other comments and history were made objectively.

If something looks like self promotion (of me or the site) please tell me so and I'll remove it or modify it. But quite frankly, if gamefaqs and 1up.com have wikipedia pages, why can't VGM have one?

If the fact that it was I that added most of the information is what makes it look like self promotion, then... would it make any difference if someone else adds the information on wikipedia?

If none of the staff members or the webmaster can add the information, can we still give it to someone else to add it? After all, who else than the staff members would know all the history of the page?

Thanks in advance. ReyVGM 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According the article you are a key contributor to the web site. However, your association is less of a concern than the simple lack of notability. Others may disagree. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... I get it now, I thought it was about me spamming or something :P Well, if its about notability I don't think VGM is missing any. Allow me to enlighten you :D

VGM gets over 5000 hits a day, averaging 1 million hits every 5 to 6 months. It might not be much compared to this site (obviously) but for a fan based non profit site I think it's quite good.

Gamefaqs currently links to all the screenshot pages we have on the vgmuseum.

VGM was featured in the NY Times in an article about Game endings.

VGM has been featured 2 times on joystiq.com in game ending articles.

VGM has been featured on 2 European magazines (their names escape me, but the scans are somewhere in vgm's ftp)

I was recently interviewed about vgm and game endings for yet another European magazine, that issue comes out in april though.

VGM has been linked multiple times on big name sites like 1up.com, gamespot.com and IGN.com on articles they have done about old games, game scans and game endings.

A quick google search for vgmuseum returns 209,000 entries, I know most are repeats, but still...

As you know, google presents the most linked pages on top when you make a search, by that logic if you searched something featured on VGM it shouldn't appear on the first page. But a quick google search with the keywords "Game endings" or "Game scans" (without even writing vgmuseum) brings back a lot of results with VGM being first or at least in the top 5.

And not to mention the hundreds of forums that link to the screenshots or game ending pages every month (I check vgm refferal pages almost daily)

If you want proof of all the online articles and news about VGM let me know and I'll be happy to hunt them down to prove once and for all that VGM is indeed known up there with the big boys :)

Oh I almost forgot, IGN networks once tried to buy VGM and the webmaster said no (currently they pay him a few bucks a year to keep links to their gamespy, gamestats and ign networks on vgm's main page) The European video game company Ubisoft once tried to buy VGM too(don't ask me what for, because I have NO idea why they would want it for). And last but not least, Magazine editors Jeremy Parish and Mark Macdonald from 1up.com both complimented the site directly to me and said they always went there for old images when I joined the 1up.com community almost a year ago.

I hope that's proof enough that VGM is notable along with the big websites out there.

ReyVGM 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why, pray tell is it promotional? If something needs to be modified please say it, but don't delete it all because of a few sentences that you might not like.

What makes gamefaqs wiki page so different than VGM's wiki what this one is promotional but theirs isn't?

Besides, Garglebutt already said that the page is scheduled for deletion not because it's self promotion, but because he doesn't think the page is well known enough to have a wiki page. ReyVGM 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Revo Whose to say if a page is well known or not to have a Wiki page? just b/c he has never heard of it? well I'm sure their are alot of bands out their who have notoriety in their field of work but aren't exactly getting number #1 albums but are still making it on the charts does that make them exactly less notieble?...I'm sure alot of ppl have never heard of the website blabbermouth.net but it still has a wiki page...

Rey has an exhaustive list of reasons why the site has merit and notability and nearly any one of them is reason enough. Information about this video game and internet icon had to be added from a reliable source... Promotional no, notability yes. Much more reasoning is needed to be considered for deletion.

--Thomas Buckwalter 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC) http://joystiq.com/search/?q=Vgmuseum.com here are the two articles on joystiq.com and http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=video+game+museum+endings&d=&o=&v=&c=&n=10&dp=0&daterange=full&sort=closest number 5 on the list is the NY Times article on VGM (both of which u have to be a member to actually read the article)

Thanks to the ones that came in my defense. I really don't want to cause trouble or to go against the rules, but if the wiki page is getting deleted for lack or notoriety, I gotta ask what more can VGM do to be more famous when big sites are already linking to VGM left and right?

And if the article really looks like it's blatantly self promoting me or the site, then please edit it at your will or tell me what to change or remove to make it less 'promotional'. ReyVGM 05:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from Garglebutt: "I believe the web site is non-notable, not the article. It doesn't seem to be linked to much on the web " That was his reason for marking the article for deletion, he said he it didn't see vgm being linked to much on the web, thus making it un-important or non notable. I provided lots of links proving that VGM is linked in a lot of places. On Gamefaqs alone there are over 10,000 links to VGM ReyVGM 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All the reasons I gave are true, no need to hunt for all the pages that link to VGM, but if you REALLY need proof then go ahead. Both of the joystiq articles were posted above, as well as the NYTimes one.

Here are some more links:

http://sports.ign.com/articles/552/552817p1.html

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/504/504617p1.html

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/080/080880p1.html

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/533/533968p11.html

IGN pays Garrett Dockery (VGM's webmaster) to have links to IGN, Gamespy and Gamestats on the main page. Check it out (on the right of the Staff link) Why would a huge site like IGN pay VGM to have links to their sites if VGM wasn't well known? It's only like 80 bucks a year though

Why would IGN even try to buy off VGM if it wasn't well known? Why would Ubisoft try to buy it too if it wasn't well known? (Though I don't know what the heck they would want with it) ReyVGM 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My Astronomy web site gets a lot of hits and is linked from all sorts of high profile places on the internet but I don't think it warrants an article. At the very least the Website Designs and Staff Members sections need to go as they look like vanity to me. As an aside ReyVGM, you should sign your posts at the end of the text, not the beginning. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"At the very least the Website Designs and Staff Members sections need to go as they look like vanity to me."

Gone, I hope that makes it better now.

If it still gets deleted after fixing this or fixing more stuff I'll give up. If it's about notability and published works and whatnot, I wonder what are pages like Penny Arcade Web Comic and its description of every comic character doing on wikipedia? What is Zophar's Domain page doing on wikipedia? What is Retrogames doing here too?

What exactly is it that VGM needs to be notable? An award? ReyVGM 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

isn't vanity for blabbermouth.net article to include a list of users who comment alot to their article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.163.30 (talk • contribs)

I just wanted to say that I agree with Rey on this. Maybe the grammar or presentation could be polished up a bit, and if that's the case then we can certainly go in and polish it up. But I would hardly say this article is worthy of deletion.Epoq

''** You think a link from GameFAQs makes something notable? Melchoir 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)''

''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''

Melchoir, you need to go back and read every point that Rey makes. A link itself is just a link whether its whitehouse.gov or wikipedia.org But the website has value especially since its connected to every other major video game website. If you have a relative knowledge of the video game internet then you'd know that these sites arethe worlds focal point (gamefaqs.com, vgmuseum.com) for video games.

The Non-Notability reason for deletion has to come with more evidence than the links because that is not a valid argument considering the handful of other reasons. With that method you could as easily say "well the FOMC isn't important because its just a few links on the internet and it does things that do not directly effect me." The one reason that he gave that you have a problem with you misrepresent to begin with not to mention there are a handful of other reasons.

"This is way above and beyond most of the crap websites that are even borderline'' on AfD." Nifboy 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)''

Agreed. Thomas Buckwalter 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FOMC gets 2800 hits on Google news; the top ten hits are Industry Week, Forbes, Bloomberg, Dallas Morning News, Albany Times Union, Inman.com, Aspen Times, Financial Times, Reuters, and Business Day. Video Game Museum gets 1 hit on Google news, and it's a blog. The notability criterion and the WP:WEB guideline are founded on the policies of no original research and verifiability. When I say something is non-notable, I am not making some vague insult that no one finds it important; I am saying that the Wikipedia community experience is that we cannot write an encyclopedic article on the subject. I have read through this entire AfD, thank you very much, and I have found nothing that satisfies WP:WEB. If you have additional, qualitatively different evidence, you are welcome to present it; until then my vote remains delete. Melchoir 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"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.--Revo 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bloating? You people wanted "Proof" and "reasons" why VGM was notable and I gave the proof and reasons. Now it's bloating? You people are hard to please. Garglebutt's original reason for marking the wiki for deletion was NON-NOTABILITY, I gave a bunch of reasons why it IS notable. Unless I'm completely unawake of what being 'notable' means. ReyVGM 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that newcomers to Wikipedia often misunderstand the jargon that we use. The nominator should have pointed you to WP:WEB. Have you read that page? Do you understand now? Melchoir 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You refer to sites that use content from VGM but that's not VGM itself. The files could all be sitting in a subdirectory on IGN and noone would be any the wiser. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Took a stab at clean-up
Anyone else want to? This is what should have been done rather than the knee-jerk AfD. Bobak 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Refactored from project page

 * Well the thread speaks for itself. --170.20.11.116 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Mr. IP 170.20.11.116, there is nothing wrong with that forum post, it was done before the wiki page was even started and when the page was marked for deletion I asked the users to come in and help with positive comments. I didn't even know there was some kind of voting on wikipedia to keep pages. I also find it a bit funny that you said you once had a wiki deleted when you don't even seem to be registered. Maybe you are afraid of showing your nick after posting that link? What's even funnier is that a person made a new account over there at 1up.com for the sole reason of posting a link to the forums very much in the same way you did, trying to accuse me of certain things. Maybe I'm being stalked by the same person? ReyVGM 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look for the post, "the article is scheduled for deleting because of 'self promotion' go in and defend it, if sites like gamefaqs and zophar.net have wikipedia pages, why can't vgm have one?" from ReyVGM. I cannot tell when it was posted, but it was edited on 2/26. The problem is that ReyVGM and Bobak are most likely biased since they are personally involved in the site.  There is nothing wrong with being pasionate about what you do.  It is highly laudable.  It doesn't even mean that your point is incorrect or invalid.  It just means your position may be biased is all.  --170.20.11.116 15:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bobak is not involved with the site, I personally have never heard about him before. Only ones giving their opinions here are two frequent forum visitors: Revo and Thomas. ReyVGM 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to do with VG Museum, I am an admin on another video game website who knows how commonly used VG Museum is among the online gaming community. As I noted elsewhere, there person who nominated VG Museum for deletion subsequently nominated KLOV because user ReyVGM brought it up (an AfD nomination that already has been soundly defeated in the meantime).  My point is that the Wikipedians who have a vague knowledge of the online video game community should not be going around nominating AfDs like this.  Here's a thought "170.20.11.116": maybe there are people on Wikipedia who can agree on positions you don't agree with. I make no defense of whatever ReyVGM has done on Wikipedia otherwise, I am just agreeing that this article is notable.  Enough with the laughable accusations that we must thus be collaborators.  If we're tossing around accustions, maybe 170.20.11.116 was involved in the JFK assassination ;-)  Bobak 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems susipicious for a user who has been associated with wiki(stated that they have edited and created pages, yet doesn't have an user ID). Now is when a certain user is supposed to log on and tell us to assume good faith. To some I can see how Rey's action can be veiwed as out of line. Anyhow it isn't like he is handing out free cookies to be here (although I am a bit hungry). When I came here I expected a debate not a vote. Some did take it as somewere to vote for VGM. Anyhow we have the right to come here and defend VGM, to let people see our side of the story. People of the forum could have easily came and decided that this article needed to be deleted. Really the problem in this debate is that we interpret the whole WP:WEB different, I interpret it more rough guide to keep the next door neighbors son from making a website about geocities and making an article about it, While others seem to interprete it as something that only like the top 5 websites or no websites should have an article. This would work if there weren't already so many websites wiki pages out there. Alot in my oppinion that are questionable.(Revo 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What I find funny is that both Mobygames and KLOV have wiki pages, when those 2 sites are basically the same thing as VGM. ReyVGM 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Shh! Logic doesn't always work in Wikipedia.  Mob rule is the order of the day.  Bobak 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are (were) right. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You nominated KLOV for deletion, Garglebutt, which confirms everything I commented with you on your/my talk pages. You are not in any way familiar with the video game scene.  KLOV is cited by major media outlets like Newsweek and other popular outlets like The Onion.  Don't nominate AfD simply because you apparently have issues with ReyVGM. Bobak 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn! You have no idea about my motives and I have absolutely nothing against ReyVGM. The fact you consider yourself a bigger fanboy than me is great for you, but of no interest to me. I have an astronomy web site that is widely linked and mentioned in international press but I don't see any reason to have an article about it on Wikipedia and would put it up for afd if someone did start an article on it. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on Garglebutt, don't put those sites up for deletion :( Apparently you're not very familiar with the VG scene (as others have said) but I can asure you KLOV and Mobygames are very famous (even though Moby has crappy screenshots :P) Those sites (and VGM) aren't hurting anyone :) ReyVGM 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your weak, ego-driven side point about being into astronomy has really little reference here --especially since the video game website I admin (which also isn't listed) has been mentioned in published video game magazines throughout the US and Europe. I'm also an attorney.  What does that mean?  As little as your own above argument.  Logic, however does have something going for it --which is why your attempt to AfD KLOV is getting smacked down for the insecure vendetta that you've made this.  Your, at best paltry, knowledge of video games gives you little to know basis for nominating AfD in this area (now astronomy, go wild as far as I care).   You keep pretending that your motives aren't as plain as day, but you've left a trail that leaves things clear to a neutral observer.  Bobak 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, let's try to keep this WP:CIVIL! Argue facts, not motivations. Thanks! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, JiFish. Fact(1): Garglebutt opened this AfD by citing his displeasure at other actions by ReyVGM; Fact(2): I and other argue that avid gamers recognize the legitimacy of the VG Museum, regardless of how bad the article is written; Fact(3): when asked in quite civil talk page questions as to whether he's a gamer, Garglebutt said he is and that he is not in any way motivated by his earlier comments about ReyVGM (feel free to look this up).  Now, to this point it's not certain that we have anything more than a difference of opinion.... However: Fact(4): As soon as ReyVGM came into this dispute and cited the extremely well known KLOV, Garglebutt immediately nominates it for deletion; Fact(5): Don't take my word for it: the AfD page for KLOV is a tidal wave of keep.  Why?  Because deleting it would shock the conscience of anyone who follows the video game scene.  Those are all facts, 100%.  I submit that readers take what they will from them.  There's danger in someone who doesn't really know about a particular topic and/or culture going around and doing AfD nominations.  Bobak 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (I apologize, should all this below the dashes be moved to the Discussion page? This is the first time I've ever been in an AfD dispute on Wikipedia) Bobak 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Garglebutt opened this AfD by citing his displeasure at other actions by ReyVGM" I do admit I was warned several times last year, but I was new and like most 'noobs' I thought I could just add and edit whatever I wanted. In an hour or so I added a bunch of ending links to a bunch of game pages here, JiFish sent me several warnings but I never saw them until I was done and saw the new message appear up there. The matter was settled after that, no need to keep saying it considering I never spammed again. "he is not in any way motivated by his earlier comments about ReyVGM " I said several times that if the article needed to be changed/fixed to look less like an advertisement then that could be done, I asked him several times to tell me what to remove and I removed it. My guess is that he doesn't really care what gets fixed or removed, he just wants the article deleted. This is my first time writing an article and you know what wiki page I took as a model to make the VGM one? The Gamefaqs page. The GameFaqs wiki has a bunch of Top 100 games lists, mentions a bunch of moderators and a list of all the people that have copied their forums designs. So I said 'well, if they have that there then I guess I can mention the staff members and artistic designs VGM has had in the past', but no, that's called vanity. "As soon as ReyVGM came into this dispute and cited the extremely well known KLOV, Garglebutt immediately nominates it for deletion" That was just to prove his point that he has nothing against me or VGM. But after you came into the picture it has been made aparent that he is indeed against something. I don't buy that non-notability crap, especially after posting all those links from IGN, NYtimes and Gamefaqs which were removed.ReyVGM 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to assume good faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I never once said any of these sites weren't popular and useful to their target audience. My afd nominations were purely based on whether they warranted an article on Wikipedia, as was my comment about my astronomy web site. I note from the speedy keep that KLOV is far less disputed re notability than this article. Let's try to retain an iota of objectivity here folks. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So, for how long does this voting/discussion go on? How many days? How many Keep/Delete votes do you need to keep it or delete it? There are more Keep votes than delete ones and a few of the ones that originally voted for deletion have changed their votes to "keep or neutral", is that a good thing or a bad thing? ReyVGM 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is normally about a week, but they can be closed early or late depending on how clear-cut the debate is. This isn't a vote, so the actual number of votes either way (should be) irrelevent. In practice, the votes are a pretty good ear-mark, about 70% ish deletes to delete may be considered a concensous to delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)