Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com (4th nomination)

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 keep. --Coredesat 04:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Fails WP:N per lack of significant coverage. Temp cleanup3 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC) — Temp cleanup3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep There are two reliable sources (Lansing State Journal and Wis10) with coverage that just barely qualify as non-trivial. I can't attest to the GamePro articles, but with GameTZ being mentioned in the title of one, that would seem to qualify as well. As such, it seems to meet the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Further, I note that the nominating user is an SPA who's only contribution is to nominate this article for deletion. That in of itself is not a reason to keep, obviously, but given the AFD history for this article, it does bear consideration.-Chunky Rice 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Except from WP:WEB - This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, except for the following: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. 216.163.40.100 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)— 216.163.40.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, those are the criteria I applied. -Chunky Rice 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Both references are trivial mentions, per guidelines cited above. Each mention is no more than one sentence, or a basic description of the site's function and features. Again, as a reminder: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address ... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site ... 216.163.40.100 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

While they're certainly borderline cases, your statement is factually false. One has two sentences, the other has it's own section. -Chunky Rice 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lansing State Journal reference does not discuss GameTZ as a main focus of the article in question. It is neither a reliable source, (required per WP:WEB) nor does it pose any significant notability in itself. My guess is that this trivial mention was written by an editor who likely stumbled across the site and wanted to give it a quick shout-out. Please review the references more carefully before promoting false information. 216.163.40.100 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, whether or not it's the "main focus" of the article or not is irrelevant. The only question is whether the coverage is trivial or not. Second, in what way is the Lansing State Journal not a reliable source? Per WP:RS "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Finally, I'll thank you not to accuse of "promoting false information." We'll overlook the fact that you're the only one who's stated an outright falsehood.

My opinion on the matter stands. I'm not going to devote any more energy to arguing with an SPA. -Chunky Rice 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and take time to go over WP:CIV. Personal attacks will do nothing to accomplish a consensus. 216.163.40.100 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the operational defination of a single purpose account. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Yet another bad faith nomination by someone to scared to use their real account. This is getting ridiculous. See the previous arguments in the previous noms. This article meets WP:N and WP:V. These endless AfDs are becoming very disruptive and pointy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA, from an administrator no less. Let's not turn this into a flamewar. We're here to discuss why the article is / is not a proper candidate for deletion. I'm going to ignore any further personal attacks here on out and go straight for disciplinary action. 216.163.40.100 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That was hardly a personal attack. These nominations are coming from single purpose accounts who have one agenda, and that is to delete this article. Feel free to report him, but until you apply the proper templates and give him the proper warnings, they will be ignored; faceless threats do not bode well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. How can it be a personal attack when you're anonymous? Nothing personal about that. The previous three AfDs clearly established why this article is not a viable candidate for deletion. Obviously someone (we'll likely never know who as they keep hiding behind anonymity) has a vendetta against this article as barely two months goes by without it being nominated again. Why don't you go actually improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly rehashing the same old arguments over and over and over. As I wrote above, this smacks of WP:POINT and WP:DE. Sorry if I sound frustrated, but this is really getting absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Two reliable sources and great article. This deleting nonsense for this article is getting old, and is being implemented from editors who have no prior contribution histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reminder The point of this AfD discussion is to discuss the article in question. Let's focus on this, please. 216.163.40.100 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should recuse yourself from making false allegations and threats of reporting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I should note that our friendly anon (or some of his/her friends or IP socks) had fun with my talk page here, here, here, here, here, and here. Nice job keeping things on topic. Now lets try a little of "practice what you preach", shall we? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go as far as to say strike this AFD as it may be a trolling attempt, seeing as how this single purpose account came onto Wikipedia and "discovered" GameTZ.com's entry. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Prev AfD discussion ended just 2 months ago, similar pattern of IP sock abuse emerging, likely bad faith nom. Caknuck 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Friendly Reminder I'm not sure what's going on with previous noms and abuse, but please leave that out of this discussion. Again, the point of this debate is to discuss the article in question. So far, everyone has been hung-up on the possibility of SPA accounts. Let's not get hasty about entertaining bad ideas. If this is a case of suspected SPA, please use the appropriate tools to deal with it. It does not belong as the focal point of this discussion. Please discuss the article's reasons for AfD. Thank you. 216.163.40.100 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the use of socks and SPA's is done to try to countermand the result of a previous AfD that was resolved only two months ago, then it's certainly a cause for concern. Nominations not made by trusted and experienced editors are usually suspect, as it usually points to sock manipulation (a violation of WP policy) or demonstrates a poor understanding of the rules regarding content around here. And considering that the previous socks were utilizing open proxies and dynamic IPs, it's doubtful that checkuser will accomplish much. Caknuck 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • AfD discussions are not a popularity vote, which is precisely why I put up the template reminder above. Regardless of how many votes are cast toward the article's status, the administrator responsible for overviewing the deletion must take into consideration the merit of each point made. So far, absolutely no progress has been made toward this. Again, I ask that contributors discuss the article's references in depth, and detail how they do or do not sufficiently meet notability guidelines. I see no reason for me to continue stressing for this when it is supposed to be the entire point of this discussion in the first place. 216.163.40.100 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Why haven't you gone about improving the article yourself? It seems since you are here just to pinprick around GameTZ.com and nothing else, you would have all the time in the world to improve on it instead of bicker and file useless AFDs (a fourth in a short period of time). Along with that, your not-useful reminders that we are "entertaining bad ideas" that do not follow along with your viewpoints, essentially, and your threats of calling in some admin is quite contridicting. You have not made a strong case of why it is not notable, and while we have to continue to bellow out the same explaination time and time again, you just pull up some mangled template to show us that you care more about controlling the discussion rather than improving the article or adding reasons why you believe the article is not notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The article fails WP:N, and therefore cannot be improved upon. It would be better to remove it, since it the subject lacks any encyclopedic significance. Scroll up and address my original case in regards to the Lansing and syndicated TV references. I made a strong case here, but the discussion quickly derailed into a flamewar. 216.163.40.100 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N. Craw-daddy 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like things aren't changing much as my userpage was just vandalized by User:69.10.36.3. Looks like you anons are still all talk when it comes to just staying focused on the topic at hand. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  ^ Blocked. 69.10.36.2 has similar edits and was reported to AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was the one who blocked 69.10.36.3. AIV likely won't do anything as s/he's stopped for now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  It was blocked for 3 days. I made the passing that it was a continuation of .2 Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well, that works, too. 216.163.40.100 has made the claim that noms 2, 3, and 4 are bogus and made only to garner attention. I don't know if it's true, and I don't know if there's any way to prove the claim. I thought it should be noted here, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep again, since the nominator's assertion of "no significant coverage" is easily found to be false. For renominations, it would be nice to see a more detailed argument based on the previous discussions. — brighterorange (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I have semi-protected this discussion as the anons who were participating can't seem to behave like adults. They are free to make comments on the talk page, however, and I encourage the closing admin to look there in case they do. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This appears to be a bad faith nomination from an SPA. However, the article does cite plenty of reliable third-party sources to convince me that the website can passes WP:NOTE. It's unfortunate that most of of these sources can't be checked out online, but that's not a reason to delete the article. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Request to close this AFD due to bad faith nomination, similar to the last try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The rationale for deletion is patently false, and it appears that the account was created solely for re-nominating this for deletion to begin with, leading me to believe this entire charade was done in bad faith. Burntsauce 17:47, 31 July 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.