Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2old2play.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete lacks extensive, non-trival coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, per WP:WEB. --slakr\ talk / 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2old2play.com

2old2play.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB as an unnotable website. Additionally, the site's url is listed in Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, making the article impossible to even edit (couldn't even put the AfD notice in it without first stripping out all links to it). Collectonian (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete: The article seems to have been supported by an interest in advertising the website, which is troubling. That earned the site a spot on our blacklist. That alone creates a strong case for deletion. Add that to a notability problem. An interview mention buried on the xbox live community site gives some notability, but not enough to pass a threshold test for inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't really pass WP:N, with coverage in only one source. The article reads like a brief advert. Bridies (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appearance in secondary sources is apparently limited to a single web-based interview (which in turn is hosted on a promotional corporate fansite) and does not establish a convincing case for notability. As well, the issue with it being a blacklisted site puts editors in an awkward position. The case for deletion outweighs any reasonable expectation for the site to develop notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that significant coverage to be honest, just a few passing mentions in articles. --neonwhite user page talk 03:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Some notoriety for the site, however its hard to verify it. The issue of the blacklisting may be due to confusion with the site gamestooge.com, which attaches itself with 2old but the link doesnt seem to go the other way around(beside forum posts). If someone can provide adequate sources I'd say keep. John.n-IRL 03:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as not passing WP:WEB. Even the one source in the article doesn't really establish notability. I'm not convinced that the site being blacklisted should be a factor in AfD (since that could be the result of someone unrelated to the site, ie diehard fan), but this is a delete regardless of that. Bfigura (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable. The source provided is not sufficient to establish notability. KTC (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable website. I'm a member of the site, but right now there are just not enough sources to make it notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - first off, that it is a blacklisted site does not mean it is not notable; I would tell Random to assume good faith, since I created the page and have no connection to the site at all. Anyhow, some other coverage: from the The Escapist:[1] as well as numerous newspapers profiling adult gamers, e.g., [2] (and these include exclusive mentions, not just "passing"). Then there's the fact it was profiled in Official Xbox Magazine (Is. 43, April 2005, i believe.) In other words: multiple, independent sources. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment So I read through those sources (or as much of them as was freely available online), and they don't seem provide in-depth or detailed coverage of the site. They seem to be more focused on the concept of older gamers, or on the founders of the site (in latter case, it's just a 4-line interview with them). Notability requires in-depth coverage of the site in question, which these sources don't seem to establish. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
From WP:WEB: "...but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..." I feel that the sources provided (I'm trying to get a ProQuest access, so I can get the full copies of the google news searches) do fufill criterion in this way. I also think together the Xbox.com and OXM sources prove notability. Is two the bare minimum? Yes, but I am confident the article can be cleaned up and improved to show notability (the OXM was literally a story about them, I'll see if I can find some scans for it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Bfigura that the Escapist article is trivial 'coverage'. 2old2play isn't the subject of that article at all, it's Halo. I can't comment on the newspaper article because I can't read it. The print magazine article might be enough (it's mentioned in the article but there's no citation), it depends. Has anyone got access to it? Bridies (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fuchs. Sources found -> notable. User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Sources found, does not mean notable. A site must have adequate sources from locations which are notable themselves. So far 2old2play doesn't seem to fulfill this. (Certainly the adequate part anyway). John.n-IRL 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Fuchs made a good enough case that the site is notable. It's much better to err on the side of too much information on Wikipedia than too little. --MQDuck 08:06, 8 May 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.