Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoseeker
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 due to lack of reliable sources, which make it impossible to verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Neoseeker
This article is basically an ad for a website, and the only source for any information in it is the website itself. The article has been tagged for months with a request for sources, but none seem to be forthcoming. I can't find anything on Google or Google news indicating that this is a particularly notable site, and I don't see any evidence that it meets our inclusion criteria per WP:WEB. I suggest we delete it; please discuss. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Even though I don't think it fits neatly into any of the inclusion criteria for WP:WEB, I think it's worthy of an article on the basis of size. The only external links I can find to the site are other tech sites that aggregate (is that the right word) and link back to Neoseeker reviews, although I blame this on the fact that neoseeker's own subdomains account for at least 10 pages of google results. Definitely needs cleanup though - currently too detailed and spammy. --carelesshx talk 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is definitely an article we should keep. The reason a lot of places don't link back to it or contain information on it is because it's a hardware and tech review site (With the occasional game review). Deleting Neoseeker's Wiki article would be like deleting Gamespot's Wiki article.Guticb (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as wholly unreferenced. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, It has made some significant contributions. Some may remember the whole Bigfoot in GTA San Andreas thing. It started on Neoseeker. In theory, most of this article is verifiable. It would be difficult to verify some things though. Most of the statistics are from the site itsself (DUH, there aren't gonna be other sites that keep track of how many users Neoseeker has >_>) Guticb (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And THIS isn't just a big ad for GameFAQs? If the Neoseeker article is deleted, then I think it's only fair to take down all other gaming sites articles. Or other sites articles in general. We deserve the same amount of respect as you give other sites. If need be, we could change it to better fit other site's articles. Jon24hours (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I completely disagree with the statement that it's Wikipedia page is nothing more then an advertisement for the subject in question. It's a historic database on an internet forum, which is a valid topic in your WP:WEB, that holds more then 300,000 members who have built a site around thousands of different topics (not a far off path from how Wiki works). Stating that it's Wikipedia page was built for the soul purpose of advertising could be said for practically any website related article. Ecto5 19:47, 10 December 2007
- Keep. The point about referencing is kinda weak, because if you look at other website articles (such as the GameFAQs one that's being mentioned) is also filled with self-referencing citations. Scanning through the GameFAQs references, I see 84 references with...what, 10? coming from something besides gamefaqs.com or one of its subdomains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnivorous Sheep (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without Reliable sources, an article can not exist in wikipedia. Also closing admin should discount those meatpuppet votes above. Thanks Secret account 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Death to gonzo encyclopedia writing! It is an unsourced "about us" page that belongs on their website, not in an encyclopedic. My quick scan of Google News shows no sign of this website passing WP:WEB. There have been proponents at this Afd, but the article hasn't improved, nor have reliable sources been provided here. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - when the meatpuppets arrive I immediately smell a rat. This page must go as completely lacking any reliable, secondary sources. There is no attempt to provide a NPOV by including any critical assessment. Fails WP:V which is policy. TerriersFan (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I see only in-house citations. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 11 December 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.
