Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TotalGaming.net

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 delete. Proto///type 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TotalGaming.net

Article written by company employee. I don't see any precise claims of notability. No Alexa info. This is all original research and I don't see any reliable sources verifying any of this. I also question the notability of their products, which feature no sources, except for their respective homepages. Wickethewok 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Comment, I would think all of their product pages should be rolled into this Afd--Nick Y. 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response - When this concludes, I'll attempt to figure out what should be nominated, unless you would like to add it to this nom (I would have no objections to that). Does anyone have any thoughts on Stardock (TotalGaming's parent company)? It seems like a possibly notable company, though the article is certainly original research as well. Wickethewok 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep let's wait for notability establishment and sources. No reason to delete this. --Liface 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the article editor has five days to do so. If no sources are able to be provided, do you agree that this should be deleted then? Wickethewok 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, with additional referencing: Hi there! Primary article editor here . . .

Firstly, I think people are mistaking this for an article about a website, possibly because of the article's name. It is not - it is about a subscription service/system, which happens to have a website. That is why the majority of the content is about the details of the subscription service and a description of the games on it. It should be considered in relation to articles like Steam (content delivery). As the website's actual address is totalgaming.stardock.com, the site's traffic is absorbed by alexa's stardock.com entry, which had a rank of 6,321 as of today (this doesn't count WinCustomize, which is primarily a website, ranked 3,545).

TotalGaming.net's notability rides on the fact that it is a commercially-successful digital distribution systems for computer video games (not something founded with venture capital that didn't actually provide a viable product). It was in production before Valve had even announced their offering, and it has been running for over five years now. I know it's hard to prove commercial success for a privately-owned company, but put it this way - I don't think we would have kept doing it for that long if we didn't make any money out of it. :-)

The game articles that are linked in the text (within the Games section) are there because they were there already. I did not start any of them, although I am the majority contributor to Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. I used external links for the rest of the games precisely because I felt that was better than creating redlinks on the page for things which had not yet been judged notable by others. On reflection, I've commented these out from Template:Stardock as well - I was trying to be comprehensive, but they just clutter it up. Perhaps it would be a better article without the external links, either? It seems hard to judge a service's relevance without knowing what games are on it, though - that's why I've kept the list updated.

I will try to improve this article's referencing. I know I can get some more specific and additional sources for some of it - for example, I'm pretty sure Penny Arcade has commented on the service. Right now I'm a little busy with WikiFur and my presentation for Wikimania (as well as, you know, actual work ;-), but I should be able to do what I can by the end of the week. --GreenReaper 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. KleenupKrew 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per GreenReaper. Seems like more than just an advertising article. The Inquirer (quoted source) is a fairly reputable publication. Tevildo 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Well-written article, but with only one independent third-party source listed, notability is an issue. And even the referenced article says of Stardock - "Stardock Entertainment, a small indie publisher..." None of the plethora of game articles linked seem particularly notable either. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some more that aren't built mostly from our material. The game industry has an unfortunate habit of taking a press release and putting it out there and calling it news. GreenReaper 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Stardock--TBCTaLk?!? 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually split it out from Stardock because it was getting too large, and because it seemed odd to be talking about a company and a digital content system in the same article. I can try putting some of the content and references back in there if suggested for merging/deleting. Some more information about what particular segments of the article people do and do not like (rather than just "original research" or "non-notable") would be helpful for knowing what to keep in that case. GreenReaper 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement, original research, also fails WP:WEB. No, I'm not mistaking this article for being about a website, I'm identifying this as an advertisement selling company services, written by a company employee (thereby failing WP:NPOV). Tychocat 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It fails NPOV if it is written non-neutrally, not because I wrote it. If you have specific complaints, please raise them and I'm more than willing to try and correct them. If you think it is selling company services, please tell me what parts of the article you think are inappropriate, and why - or edit it yourself, if you do not trust me to do so to your satisfaction.

I've been a Wikipedian for longer than I've been a Stardock employee, and I have tried to write a neutral, informative article about TotalGaming.net, which I believe to be notable for the reasons stated above. I'm willing to work with others who feel that I am missing something. However, I cannot "fix" complaints that don't have a specific solution. GreenReaper 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Dr Zak 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say in regards to that. I've done my best to make sure that the article is verifiable, if mostly from primary sources. I feel that TotalGaming/Drengin.net is a notable topic for being one of the first successful systems for the online distribution of games on a large scale, even if it has not been the most popular of those that emerged after it (not everyone has Half-Life 2 to promote their distribution system :-). Isn't covering a concept's origins as well as the current behemoths part of Wikipedia's goals? GreenReaper 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The one referenced reliable source [1] isn't enough for me to consider this notable, and the material sure looks like original research. --William Pietri 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Which particular material? The other sources are primary sources for the factual data they cover on the history of the content system (being mostly annoucements by Stardock employees Frogboy (Brad Wardell) and Yarlen). I guess the reasoning for the changes in the service over time should be attributed specifically to them, though there might be better references for that (would probably be more forum posts by Brad, I'm sure he's talked about it at some point . . .). GreenReaper 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that you work for Stardock, I think using Stardock sources to write up an article on a Stardock product is too much like original research for my tastes. Sorry, I agree with WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN : if you do something important enough to merit an encyclopedia article, you should trust others to notice that. And I think that goes as well for the corporate "you" as the personal one. I'd encourage you to put the material elsewhere on the Internet, though. --William Pietri 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would indeed prefer to use non-Stardock sources, but frankly the only ones I could find that had sufficient detail on the mechanisms of subscription were just repeating our press releases, as so many sites do. It seemed better to have an authoritative source for that. There aren't many references on the Steam article that are about the system itself, either - it seems not many people like to write seriously about content delivery systems, just the games that are on them. I've just been told Red Herring will be bringing a significant review out soon, but it's hardly a source before it's released. Maybe it will become useful at a later date. And thanks for the suggestion - I'll bear it in mind! GreenReaper 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I really hate disagreeing with GreenReaper, as he's a nice guy and I have a lot of respect for his work (Wikifur rules!), but I'm just not seeing enough non-Stardock sources. Also, as a general rule of thumb company and product articles should be written by non-employees. Regretfully delete at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem! If you think it should be deleted, then that's exactly the right thing to say. I would prefer to change people's minds through reasoned argument - if my arguments are not convincing enough, then you should give your opinion based on that, rather than who I am. :-) GreenReaper 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, faild WP:WEB, of the references supplied only one is not a forum/the website itself. Notability not established. Inner Earth 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect to Stardock Central - If an informative article about one content delivery system (ie Steam) is acceptable then I don't see why an article about this content delivery system should be zapped. At worst, the information in this article should be placed in the Stardock Central article, not wiped out altogether. -Spectere 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• What? - I don't think your argument makes a lot of sense. Steam is infinitely more popular. Just because we have articles about one music player (iTunes) doesn't mean "Joe Shmo's Mp3 Playa" is acceptable. Similarly, just because we have an article about one content delivery service, doesn't mean every content delivery service meets WP standards for inclusion. Also, you didn't address any of the opposing arguments made here. Wickethewok 13:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Infinitely so? No? Vastly? I don't know, where's the figures to compare? It'd be interesting to know that for TotalGaming.net as well - I have no doubt that Steam has more users, but the proportion that are there just for Half Life is perhaps a more relevant question (the same should be asked for Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II, of course).

In any consideration of the content delivery system as a whole (not just the games part, which was separated out in this article) you need to include all the applications which are provided to Object Desktop subscribers through Stardock Central (which has used a more rudimentary system since at least 1998; as with one of the first instances of "software as a service"). The games have historically been the "fun" for Stardock, while the apps have been the money. This may not apply so much this year, given GC2's success (beyond our most optimistic targets), but it has up to now.

I think that if this article is deleted it would make more sense to merge/redirect the material about the content (what games are on the service, etc.) to Stardock and perhaps add some of the material about the mechanics of the service itself to Stardock Central, as the same system is used for both the games and the applications (Drengin.net was essentially the "beta test" of the system before Stardock switched over the more important applications side of things from Component Manager, the previous delivery system). GreenReaper 17:14, 3 July 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.