Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gametalk.com

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gametalk.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}}

mainly notability. Although I would not have nominated it if the article didn't also have non-deletion criteria problems as well, notability still seems to be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

• comment thanks, i forgot to signIkanreed 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The website does not seem Notable, nor does it seem to be NPOV. To me, this looks like a plain and simple advertisement. Hydrostatics 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Andre71641 had removed the AfD tag from this article (here). It has been restored, and he has been warned, but it might be prudent to watch for future notice removals. Alphachimp ^talk 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another forum article fails WP:WEB Alphachimp ^talk 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fix Hey here's a wild idea, why don't you people fix it instead? As far as I can tell I see dozens of pages stick around, with a mini parpagraph. I mean if someone puts on a movie page, and the movie is small and not real noticable, I doubt you would put that up for deletion. --ShortShadow 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, non-notable movies do go through the AfD process. All the comments I'm seeing here seem to bring up the site's lack of notability, which "fixing" the article won't alter. - Tapir Terrific 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable - Not good --real_decimic 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

that depends. If it's a personal movie created for some college class, we would still, the main point is notability and vainity concerns. If you have valid reasons for why this website matters to people who aren't forum members, or evidence that said forum members are a large group, that would be reasonable criteria for keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

Umm, if you actually visited the forum you could see the amount of members. You could also see how this matters, it's telling people about a help site where you are gettimng help from hundreds of people. (By a Gametalk Regular) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.61.238 (talk • contribs)

"hundreds of people" doesn't get near what's needed for WP:WEB and mattering to some people isn't inherently good enough to justify an entry on wikipedia(as an examplie, my family is extremely important to me, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia material) i kan reed 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. There's a million of these. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question - Would the site be considered more notable if Media Metrix claimed Gamedex (the parent site of Gametalk) was the third largest gaming site in October 2002, after IGN and Gamespy? http://web.archive.org/web/20021002221355/http://www.gametalk.com/ -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.27.183 (talk • contribs)

• FixThe website is notable, the article is just very poorly written. I think it just needs to be an actual article and not an advertisement by some fanboy.--140.192.105.140 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WEB, inheirantly non-notable; page ranks in 2002 mean nothing- especially as the original site folded and a forum is all that's left. Unencyclopedic. Teke 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reply -The original site didn't fold. The whole family was reworked, and now gamedex is used as the search engine for the many gametalk forums. And, yes, forums is plural. Additionally, considering ign & gamespy are one company, and gamespot and gamefaqs are one company, I'd be willing to guess gametalk is STILL in third. Alexa agrees: http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=396350&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity . notice that 1 and 2 are the same network (ign is 1, forumplanet/gamespy is 2...same company) --71.235.27.183 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article should be deleted because, for one, the article is small and contains no information. 2: The website is non-notable. I agree with Teke when he describes the article as "unencyclopedic."

• Delete per WP:WEB, and due to no content. east.718 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question - How can ANY forum site be considered notable? You have a category for internet forums, so there must be some criteria. As for "no content", perhaps if you had checked the history, you'd notice someone wiped it down to one line from what it was earlier.

• Delete as non-notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:43, 22 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.