Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com (2nd nom)

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 obvious no consensus, defaulting to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com

GameTZ.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, as clearly demonstrated by the previous deletion. Proposal to delete and salt. Doko124 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Moving to own discussion page. Original deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com. Mop work - no stance -- saberwyn 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nom by possible SPA. Nominator has done little other than nominating this and one other article for deletion. The article clearly establishes notability as shown in the DRV discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to note that I don't use an account for contributing to Wikipedia. Due to issues of conflict, (and personal identity) I'm more comfortable with anonymous contributions. However, I do use this account for edits restricted from anonymous users. (i.e., AfD) Although, I'm not sure why anyone would nominate this article out of bad faith. Have there been problems with this subject in the past? I couldn't find anything in the article's history that would suggest this. That aside, the article still doesn't meet the relevant notability guideline. I want to point out that Nihonjoe is the only user contributing toward its progression. I believe this is a strong case of article ownership. 65.6.50.204 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Why are we back to this again? The article hasn't changed since the last deletion was overturned. There's really no cause for this discussion to happen other than that the deleter is hoping to slip one by when no one is looking. Dstumme 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There isn't a single notable mention for this website. GamePro, maybe, but that's still pushing it. The editors have been given a significant amount of time -- both when the article was originally nominated, and after the deletion was overturned -- to provide more sources. Frankly, I can't even understand why the deletion would be overturned, unless this goes back to being a strong case of article ownership, as stated above. Secondly, the comments directed toward myself are irrelevant to the nature of this discussion -- comments should attempt to establish the notability of the article, not resort to ad-hominem because you disagree with the nomination. 74.242.102.194 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We must be talking about 2 different definitions of "notable" then. GamePro is a notable publication, within the context of video games. In addition, I see a citation from USA Today, plus a link to a nationally syndicated TV news story. Dstumme 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that these citations are trivial. For example, this is the only excerpt from the USA Today (online) article: "Another favorite is the Game Trading Zone (gametz.com) a site that allows you to trade games you've already played for other people's used games." I'm not sure how this is a notable mention... 74.242.102.79 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nihonjoe and Dstumme are the only supporters of this article. Reviewing the decision to overturn deletion demonstrates this, as their votes were cast in clearly biased interest. Again, this is going back to being a strong case of article ownership. Unfortunately, this article doesn't seem to get much page hits as it is, and thusly, I don't think we'll be able to reach a consensus about this AfD nomination. Even if we do, Nihonjoe and Dstumme will likely continue to fight for another overturn, which is why I made the proposal to salt the earth. Bearing in mind, both contributors have been given plenty of time -- beyond what I would normally consider fair -- to provide solid references. Secondly, I feel some of the supporting votes in the deletion overturn log are a result of meatpuppetry. I'm calling for an investigation of both Nihonjoe and Dstumme. 74.242.102.79 11:56, 22 May 2007 (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.