Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game junkie

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 Naconkantari 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game junkie

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}}

Contested prod about a non-notable store. MER-C 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While Game Junkie by no means is a notable national store, it is notable on a local and regional level due to the amount of innovation it shows over your standard brick and mortar locale. The ideas that the store has put there, such as tournaments and the selling of the Bawls and SnoBawls beverage, predate their appearance on a more national level, making them notable as trendsetters. The videos mentioned in the videos by Sobrider, also predat similar efforts by groups like Mega_64. Due to knowing a lot about the store, I will be likely editing and adding more content to this article to show its worthiness to stay in the Wikipedia database. Yes, people like TJ Spyke aren't going to know about the store, but I do not believe that the inability to be nationally notable is reason for deletion. sav2880 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: sav2880 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Edited and made notable changes (being one of the top sellers of a beverage in the USA is noteable) Sobrider 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I never even heard of that drink before seeing that article. TJ Spyke 05:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you suggest that we delete the Bawls entry as well since you have never heard of it? Sobrider 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, just that it may not be as big as you think. TJ Spyke 05:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment note that Sobrider has only edited this entry, the article in question and uploaded two images concerning the article. MER-C 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It was just brought to my attention that the entry existed and I was trying to make it look like a artical should be. I decided to register because of the negitive light surrounding editing without having a username behind it. I added better information, a link to a newspaper artical that was a cover story. I am just a loyal customer of the store and it is different and noteable. Other stores don't do the things this store does. I think a great accompishment is for a store of that size to sell 20,000 of anything, let alone be a top seller in the USA. Sobrider 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have a source for that number? TJ Spyke 06:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • From the manager of the store This comes from the stores own system. If this isn't good enough then you may contact them directly. Sobrider 07:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• You've clearly never been to game junkie if you find it non-notable. Game Junkie is an amazing store where you are actually an individual with needs, instead of money to some greedy corporation. I love Game Junkie & am offended that you call the best game store non-notable. Ask any gamer in West Chester & Cincinnati, OH how notable the place is. It RULES.Makegodscringe 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Makegodscringe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Notability has nothing to do with how good or bad something is. TJ Spyke 07:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Arnzy you posted the WP:corp and Game Junkie meets the requirement of being noteable since it does have a newspaper artical talking about it listed on the external links. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following Here is the said online version of what was printed Sobrider 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's one. Are there any others? Uncle G 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• If two to one people are claiming the store in notable, it is notable. I don't understand the personal battle you have going on here. Sobrider has provided the things necessary to prove the store is notable. The article should stay due to Wiki requirements being met. Makegodscringe 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wrong. Notability is not subjective and we do not employ personal testimony of Wikipedia editors here. Sobrider actually has the right idea, and is citing sources attempting to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, by the way. Uncle G 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a store that is only "notable on a local and regional level." And for the record, WP:CORP says that your store must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. One minor article about the store's owner doesn't come anywhere near filling that requirement. There is also a terrible dearth of reliable sources for this subject. --Hetar 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does, since it discusses the store. It tells us about events held at the store, for example. The non-triviality requirement is there in order to exclude sources that are nothing more than business directory listings. The article doesn't provide much in order to source an encyclopaedia article, but it isn't a mere directory listing, or a report of opening hours. Uncle G 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is another source entry i found on the store [[1] They are breifly mentioned here [[2]] May not be the best source in the world but it is a mention of one of the previous tournements the store has had [[3]] This is way out of Game junkies region but it talks about the store. [[4]] Sobrider 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The azcentral article is a reprint of the CiN Weekly article that you linked to before, as it clearly says in its byline. Uncle G 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Even being a reprint I have shown more than enough evidance of being notable. The cin weekly article was nationally syndicated and it shows how noteable some people think the place is. Sobrider 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is even more [[5]] It may be a little mention but none the less it shows off the stores unique bathroom. Here is another one on the stores BATHROOM [[6]] Sobrider 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It really seems just because we found it right as it was getting ready for deletion we are being prejudiced upon because someone may miss out on a great delete. Yes I am a newbie but I can read and I have met the requirement's to keep this as a valid entry. I know I am not some super editor who has written tons of entry's but I can read and we have many of the staff and customers stepping up to the plate now to make it worth it. I laid the ground work by expanding on what was said now others can come and add. I have proved how noteable the store is many times over now but it seems even when I have more proof its not good enough. Sobrider 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's important for Game Junkie to be listed in Wikipedia...perhaps it's because the definition of non-notable is....nebulous. The status of non-notable is simply a matter of opinion. Wiki has a listing for the Delhi Sands Flower loving fly. Many would consider this fly a non-notable insect..many have never even heard of it. Does it deserve deletion for being non-notable insect simply because it lives in one small section of the United States? I could find more people in a 50 mile radius who have heard of Game Junkie and not the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly...which, then is more notable? More children can identify Mario than Gerald Ford...is Gerald Ford non-notable and in peril of deletion? Game Junkie tournaments attract players from the four corners of the United States..this can be proven and submitted upon request. Thank You, SanosukeGJ 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: SanosukeGJ (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have read over the listing criteria for Wikipedia, and believe I can shed some light on why this article should remain on the site. Articles pertaining to Game Junkie, as well as television newspieces have been published by independent sources with no affiliation to the store, and said articles and newspieces are not reprints of press releases. Beyond the article in CinWeekly, Game Junkie has been mentioned in articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer and on the podcast presented by Short Attention Gamer. The store has also been featured on NBC news (2004). The notability issue, being non-subjective, is met by the international attention also paid Game Junkie. Video game players from as far away as northern Canada, California and Florida frequently travel in excess of several thousand miles to visit the store. Major League Gaming is also interested in using Game Junkie as a host for official tournaments. Subjectively, Game Junkie is of interest to the nation, and the world, because it stands as a model independent business in a corporate world. Game Junkie employs a "customer as friend" approach that is unique in today's business climate, making it more than a "local or regional interest," such as the restaurants Skyline Chili or Primanti Bros. (in Pittsburgh). Customers order from as far away as Japan and Australia. Penny Arcade has interviewed the owner (link forthcoming), as has the owner of Gamebot, a nationally recognized video game show. I will edit the article to make it meet the criteria set forth by this site.

  And regarding the sale of Bawls. Hoborama, LLC, the maker of Bawls and Snobawls, is a multi-million dollar company whose products are found in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and beyond. CompUSA will begin exclusively carrying Bawls in 2007, eliminating all other drinks form its inventory, making the beverage available in over 299 stores. That an 1,800 square foot store has sold 30,000 bottles in 42 months is notable. That's over 23 bottles a day, for a business not specializing in drink sales. More will be posted in the article with citations. lytnngseed — Possible single purpose account: lytnngseed (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Delete - Bawls is sold all over the place, and tournaments happen in any LAN gaming center, there is nothing to say this particular store is notable. Wooty 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Game Junkie tournaments frequently have over 100 entrants, and the fact that Bawls are sold nationwide is not in dispute. The notability comes from the amount sold in one location. It seems your use of notable *is* subjective. I have found references to Game Junkie in forums around the country, discussing tournaments past and present. Also, Game Junkie has been mentioned in news articles around the country, mentioning its innovativeness and broad appeal. Both of these facts constitute notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I will be updating the Wikipedia article to include all citations. Lytnngseed 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How many people are in a tournament, or how much of a drink is sold at a location ("my lemonade stand had record profits, time to add a wikipedia article"! are not relevant numbers. Nor do forums count as references under notability guidelines. First off, there are no links to any of the "news articles". Second, even if there were, the NBC news thing (which is not explained in any detail) or Enquirer article (possibly) are probably the only ones of those that matter. In addition, your bias comment is confusing. How am I biased? I have nothing against or for the company. In addition, per your turning your entry into a "pretty good" article, this does not mean the article's subject is notable, it just means there's a decent article on the table. If the article needed cleanup and not deletion, the nominator would have tagged it as such. EDIT: After looking at the "articles" you mentioned, I see a few college newspaper articles, and a mention on Kotaku about the bathroom. I suppose you could create an article on the bathroom, but the company is not notable because of their unique decorating styles. Could you please use the preview button, too? I'm getting edit conflicts every time I try to respond to your points. Wooty 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• this "Uncle G has been the only one who really sees that yes we are trying to prove our point and we have changed an entry that wasn't even stub worthy into something pretty good in the course of 24 hours." was from me and it was from an editing error and has since been fixed. Sobrider 07:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wooty we have have stated it is subjective, You believe our sources are no good and yet they are legit but in your mind not good enough thats the bias Sobrider 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • By the same logic, you could be biased also - I say the sources are not good enough and you believe they're legit. What's your point? WP:CORP says you need to have multiple PUBLISHED WORKS about a company. While this technically includes things like school newspapers, your sources are either not backed up by links, or too little to prove any standard of notability. Wooty 07:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-store. Also, I find it awfully suspicious that quite a few of the accounts that have voted for "keep" or arguing to keep the article (SanosukeGJ, Lytnngseed and Makegodscringe) are recently created accounts, whose only edits are either in this discussion or in the article itself. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Check our IP's we are different people standing up for somthing that we just found out existed friday evening. Sobrider 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: There is no reason that this page should be removed. To do so would be no less than spitting in the face of a small business that has brought so much inspiration to a world dominated by big business and a world that needs a place like Game Junkie. Going to Game Junkie is like going nowhere else. The Game Junkie article is interesting, and needs to be kept up so that people can read about the store and come to realize that this small business, which not only set the bar for tournaments in our entire region, is the world leading retailer of Bawls, attracts customers both nationally and globally, employs several hardoworking, kind, helpful employees, has been featured both regionally and nationally in the press, and has overall changed the lives of many people. It is wrong to strip such a notable, interesting place from Wikipedia. It is far more important than several topics found here. HereticLeader13
• WP:NOT advertising, a crystal ball, an indiscriminate collection of information. If these other topics are not notable, please do us a favor and put them up for AfD so they can be reviewed and deleted. Wooty 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• You know what is there some way we can just speed the judgement up? At this point its gonna turn into bickering and nothing will be solved. Sobrider 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any bickering going on, I'm simply addressing your points. There is no way to speed it up, we just wait for an admin to close it. Wooty 07:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It hasn't started yet. We now seem to be marked as single purpose accounts. What does thats say to someone who's first exposure is this entry. Its mine and I like the concept and would like to do more, it just so happens that it is my 1st registered edit(as I have made a small spelling correction here or there now and then). Personally its kinda souring it for me just due to the facts that someone puts a new hoop out for me to jump though after I already lept though others. Sobrider 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry about the SPA tagging, but it's a necessary process in a community like Wikipedia. Since anybody can edit, it's very easy for a single person to create a large number of single purpose accounts in order to spam pages like this AfD, so such accounts are often viewed with a little suspicion. It's not a reflection on you as an editor (particularly if you hang around to contribute, as we all hope you will), but a response to the extremely open nature of debates such as this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as non-notable single location store. There's no article for the Logical Choice store in the centre of Canberra, and I can see no differentiating feature between that store, and Game Junkie. Sorry, this just isn't notable enough. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have edited the page and added as many articles as I could find mentioning the store and its relevance. Only one college source is listed...AZ Central, CinWeekly and the Enquirer are all professional periodicals. I have also mentioned the national websites (e.g. Smashboards, SoulCalibur, Twin Galaxies) which have taken interest in the store, further proof of potential notability. The Bawls sold and tournament entrants are just "neato" stats. The notability should come through in the articles linked. Why should it matter if someone in college wrote an article? Once pictures are posted of the store, I'm sure you'll see why Canberra and Game Junkie are *not* comparable. Why does it matter that it's a single location? Also, forgive my ignorance, as I'm not sure how to tag a television segment. To those supporting the article, please try and see what the other editors are trying to say. Stop "defending" the store. Help show why it is notable, as in its significance in the world. Wooty, I have added articles from Arizona as well as Kentucky mentioning the store. The Pac Man bathroom is notable, as it is one of a kind and would pass muster for a published encyclopedia as a monument to a pop culture icon. As I find more, I will add them. Sobrider had good intentions when creating the page, but did not have all the information. As Wikipedia is an ever-evolving process, I hope yourself and other editors can see that deletion is not necessary unless a consensus feels Game Junkie has not achieved notability when all the facts are presented, and thus has no place in the annals of Wikipedia. However, if the articles I've presented do meet the standard, I hope you will change your mind. Lytnngseed 07:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for one unstated reason. When a store affects fighting game popularity in an area, I believe that a store is notable. Players from California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Kentucky, and Florida unite to come to Game Junkie for Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen! 4 tournaments. Obviously, Ohio players also attend. Naruto 4 is the second most popular fighting in Ohio next to Super Smash Bros. Melee. And the game has grown exponentially in this area since last year. The Naruto 3 Tournament April 2005 had 6 attendees. The Naruto 4 Tournament in June 2006 had 37 attendees. Here are videos of tournaments in Ohio. [7] I am also the writer of the review on Gamespot for the game. Game Junkie is the main reason why Naruto 4 is a the second most popular fighting game in Ohio in front of Soul Calibur II, Guilty Gear XX Slash, Tekken 5, Capcom vs. SNK 2, and Marvel vs. Capcom 2. This is because Game Junkie offers a one-in-a-kind gaming experience. Friday Night Live holds small tournaments every Friday, breeding competition. Players come to buy a Bawls and play with their friends. Despite being $70 per copy plus a $20 add-on, Naruto 4 is more popular. Why? Game Junkie. Dboocock 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dboocock (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• I find it amusing how I was immediately labeled a single purpose account. I disagree. I completely revised the Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 page with updated information, correct information, and character defense ratings. I also gave an external link to a Guitar Hero clone that Wikipedia did not have. I was labeled a single purpose account because I supported Game Junkie. How ironic, a Wiki contributor supporting this store. Dboocock 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• One edit changed the name of a feature, another added an external link, and the other was a copy-paste from [8]. Wooty 23:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Incorrect. I also changed multiple errors, and added other details on the game. I have been searching Wikipedia constantly looking for things to add. I am not a single purpose account. I should not be labeled as such. I am a Wikipedia contributor. Dboocock 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• In either case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the place to argue someone's purpose on the wiki, attempting to undermine someone's validity is somewhat ignorant. Anyhow, I'll tell you what I know about the store, and how I came by it. GameJunkieJim 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I've been using the online handle GameJunkieJim for almost 13 years. About a year ago, someone pointed out the store to me, someone from Liverpool, England on an online forum. I live in New Jersey myself, so the store's location is not a major factor in it's appeal. They have public forums, which I joined (and was mistaken for an employee, to my amusement) they have public tournaments, and they make it easy for many to obtain imported titles and other goodies through mail order. My personal opinion is that they are just as entitled to have an article entry here (provided it is NPOV and about the store's features and community rather than a Wiki Advert) as Valve or Bungie.net or any other gaming oriented site (especially those with Forums). By many of the deletion arguments here, one would assume that the Microsoft page should be removed because they sell software, and they don't have stores everywhere. I think it's laughable that this is even an issue. Is the Meg of space that precious? Are we turning into little facists that decide what information is available and what isn't? I vote Keep GameJunkieJim 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft meets WP:CORP and WP:WEB requirements, sells software globally, is a multimillion dollar company, and is notable for more than their bathroom. Wooty 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thus Game Junkie meets the requirements because it was notable for more than its bathroom as evidances by the sources posted. Sobrider 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not one of the sources satisfy requirements (other than saying the bathroom is notable). Wooty 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If the bathroom is noteable the location of the Bathroom can be too.Sobrider 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, inflated TOC and other style issues aside, article sources are non-notable and store itself is also such. I find the ridiculous level of either sockpuppet or friend voting equally concerning, as almost every keep thus far is a newly-registered account who's first act was to vote here. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sources are notable and professional if you read everything. Dboocock 13:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yes were all the same person's yes thats it. What a line of crap. So whats better you got a whole bunch of new users introduced to this site or the fact that every source we list isn't credible. Those have been proven invalid as we have posted soruce after source about the store where available. you can have an admin check our IP's. Friend voting not so much. Is a newbie's opinion less valid then someone who is super duper editor of the month? Everyones arugument's are how about we are "socks" or are sources aren't good enough, even though they are used for other entry's. Sobrider 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thus the clarifier "almost". Also, that account you mention made one edit months ago, then suddenly surfaces to vote on this? I call vote stacking on that, as I do with almost every keep vote on this page thus far.most of these accounts were made with the clear purpose of swinging towards a favorable vote. To the other note, half of those are duplicated articles in local papers. In fact, let me detail your sources for you.

1. Partly copied from next source
2. Local paper
3. This is an event listing, and doesn't even focus on the store
4. Again, completely unrelated name drop
5. Two sentences? It doesn't even mention the store
6. At least this one about the bathroom mentions the name
7. Photo gallery
8. A GameSpot review?
9. Mentions the store once

• Your "sources" hardly qualify as such under current guidelines. This store isn't notable. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Coming from a website like Wikipedia, an insult like Game Junkie is "unremarkable" or not featured in unbiased sources is, like everything else on the website, written without any research and the thinnest of credibility. Game Junkie was featured in at least one local print form of media the first year it opened; I know for a fact that it has since been featured in other instances of media, all aformentioned articles being focused on the stores unique atmosphere, customer service, selection, staff, and active community involvement. - The Arab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.125.139 (talk • contribs)

• Did anyone else notice that sav2880, the first person to post on this discussion page and was labeled a single-purpose account, has been on wikipedia since April, when he made (only one, but still) an edit to another page? I found that amusing, personally. - Kuroshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.6.227 (talk • contribs)
  • I wonder why I haven't been labeled single user even though I'm now credited as the "creator"....oh wait thats right I've started to go on and do other things now. Sobrider 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the sources required. Please review the articles listed. Thank you. Also, unique, small businesses are notable. I thought the point of the site was to make known information that is interesting. Just because a reporter hasn't picked up on a story, doesn't mean the story isn't notable. It just isn't known.Lytnngseed 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wooty 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a collection of notable information, and since notability isn't even abstractly defined for Wikipedia entries, it's kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say "non-notable". Viewtyjoe 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), it fails. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published
   works whose source is independent of the company itself."

• • Seems to me they have a bunch of published works. So I say keep 161.38.223.233 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of which are either trivial, unrelated, or not even about the company in question. You missed that part. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
        • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
        • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

They don't fall into these categories, do they? Viewtyjoe 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the second one, yes. The articles do not cover Game Junkie itself, but rather the cultural phenomon of games being for more than just kids. Futhermore, it's a local paper, and bound to interview the nearest local source. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed reference in Friday Night Live section to remove furries. Lytnngseed 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Some SPAs are quite passionate about this store. But it fails verifiability of reliable sources. This is the only article about it that can be found. Cin Weekly article might at first thought be a second one, but its just a subset of the azcentral one. The Bawls claim is unsourced, and the news.enquirer.com link has this store as a passing mention. But its close. With better verifiablity I could be more confident in the article, but it mostly fan-fluff, and very localized. --Kevin_b_er 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) refers to itself as a "rough guideline." This means that, while typically anything and everything stated in it should be followed, sometimes what it contains must be interpreted or bent. It states that one way for a company to be considered notable it must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." This store was featured as the cover article for an edition of CiN Weekly, which definitely means that it has been the subject of at least one "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The only problem is that many of the other references to the store can be contested based on the wording of this rule because most of the other sources either are considered "trivial" by some, being college newspapers etc., or contain stories where Game Junkie is not the primary subject of the article. I contend, however, that if a store is the primary subject in one article, and a secondary subject in numerous other articles, that it should qualify as notable. In addition, to say that the claim regarding Bawls is 'unsourced' is insulting. Earlier on this very page was linked a reference to data collected directly from the stores sales database detailing the number of Bawls sales. The number of sales is undisputable, as it comes from sales data published by the company. In addition, claims regarding how the store is the number one retailer are based on data acquired from the Bawls company, with whom the store was in frequent contact when the store celebrated it's 20,000 Bawls celebration. And in regards to whether this figure makes the store notable, I think it does. Earlier, someone mentioned that if his lemonade stand sold a lot of lemonade, it wouldn't be notable. But I claim that if your lemonade stand sold more lemonade than any other lemonade stand in the entire country, it WOULD be notable. But I digress. In regards to the topic of articles featuring the store, I think the context should be considered. While this store is notable, it is admittedly only notable to a certain population. As it happens, the population to which it is notable prefers to receive its news and information not in printed format, but in a digital format. The fact that there isn't a preponderance of printed articles about the store in no way reflects the stores notability. The facts that people across the country discuss the store online, that people across the country watch videos from the store's tournaments, and that the store has strongly affected the gamer culture in at leat a 100 mile diameter area around it reflect its notability. Refering back to Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), it is stated that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." People independent of the company discuss it in forums, and talk about how it has affected them as gamers, and how it fits into their gamer life. People independent of the company have found it notable enough to make recordings of events at the company, format them, and then release them to the internet. The community to whom this store is notable does not purchase newspapers, and so of course there aren't stacks of newspaper articles about the company. However, the community to whom this store is notable has self-published numerous non-trivial discussions, articles, and videos about this store. The fact that they can be acquired for free does not make them trivial, and the fact that they are not published by a professional news company does not make them trivial. Numerous people, most of whom are completely independent of the company, find this store very notable. And the essence of the notability guidelines is that they attempt to find ways to prove that people find the subject notable. And if one were to claim that customers are not independent opens other companies for the non-notability chopping block, such as the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which is mentioned as notable because many people who have dined there later wrote about their dining experience. Whether or not this store meets the magic number of "multiple" published works, it is notable. People who are not related to the store devote their time to writing about it, and devote their time to sharing their experiences there. Almost anyone who has ever been there would agree that it is notable. Those who have the most knowledge regarding the store agree that it is notable. So I guess the problem isn't that the store isn't notable, just that those who've been there haven't been able to accurately portray to those who haven't been there how notable it is. And what a better venue for them to try to show how truly notable it is than Wikipedia. --Appellation 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You missed the part about how the people for Mavalli Tiffin Rooms has their accounts published independently of Wikipedia. If you want to establish how notable Game junkie is through your own experiences, then have those experiences and opnions published in a notable third-party source (a magazine, a newspaper, major online publisher, et al.). Wikipedia is not a place to establish notability - it only lists things that already have established notability, of which this store has very little of. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify some things, just because the store has sold a lot of a certain type of drink doesn't make it notable, especially when said drink is a limited sale product (one need only read its article to see that). Furthermore, even if the drink was notable, the store itself wouldn't be. It'd just be a footnote in the drink article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "People independent of the company discuss it in forums, and talk about how it has affected them as gamers, and how it fits into their gamer life. People independent of the company have found it notable enough to make recordings of events at the company, format them, and then release them to the internet. However, the community to whom this store is notable has self-published numerous non-trivial discussions, articles, and videos about this store." Some people posting threads about something on a forum and then making some videos of "n00bs getting pwned" and releasing them on the internet (anyone and their mother can post a video on YouTube, convert a video to .avi, etc.) does not a notable subject make. Wooty 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure if it matters now, but Dave Halverson from Play Magazine has contacted the store for the purpose of writing an article on it. Obviously, the article won't be printed for a few months. Lytnngseed 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the number of Bawls sold until I can provide verifiable evidence, per Wikipedia policy. Lytnngseed 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are many sources cited here (albeit without links) that include some rather major publications. This article definately seems to fit notability requirements. But it certainly isn't a very notable company in the sense of how famous it is. I had never heard of it in my 18 years or so of being a gamer and 10 or more years of surfing the internet.
• Note: I would also like to nominate this discussion for "USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE" status. Altair 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, once single-purpose accounts have been discounted, that leaves a whole bunch of well-established and new-but-not-single-purpose editors. Counting those, the consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. In fact, only one keep vote (at time of voting) thus far has been an account with more than 50 edits. Few had more than 10 when voting here. Most didn't even have one. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There appears to be one non-reprint, non-trivial, independent source which isn't enough to pass the notability guidelines. If more gets published later (as has been claimed above), then the article will easily pass a deletion review and get undeleted. Since The World Will Not End Tomorrow, Wikipedia can be patient and wait until the store works up some more recognition before having an article on it. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why such a big deal is made when accounts with fewer than 10 edits vote. The logic is flawed. It assumes that Wikipedia is automatically a part of everyone's daily life, like breathing or eating. What if this article introduced said voters to Wikipedia? You were all new to this site *once*, right? How does that discount someone's opinion? If anything, Wikipedia just grew stronger by adding all the new people who have viewed and commented on this article. Several "single-use accounts" have gone on to edit other accounts or contribute in some other way on this site. The point of a bandwagon is not who got on first, but how many got on at all. Lytnngseed 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, sort of. When a bunch of people register just to vote stack on something they like, their votes count for less. Furthermore, this isn't a vote at all, so it makes little difference, regardless. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

• Delete Not notable. RobJ1981 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a shop, featured only in "local media". - Hahnchen 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEPJust because something isn't worldly known like McDonald's doesn't mean it shouldn't be recognized and have the opportunity to be appreciated by all. Have you ever heard of Candidate for Goddess? Probably not, but wikipedia has kept it just the same. There are more useless things on this site than Gamejunkie, which keeps kids off the streets, welcomes anyone into their arms, holds tournaments that people come from everywhere in the country to participate in, and has NEVER discriminated anyone because of their past history. Never once have I felt anything than appreciated when i walk through the Gamejunkie front door. One is never treated as a customer, but extended a friendly hand, and nowhere else in the nation has ever given me that experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.189.68 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment It's now been over a week since this AfD started. Are we ever going to get to decision on this? —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:51, 11 September 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.