Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Video Games Guide

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 - Yomanganitalk 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Video Games Guide

Looks like an attempt to promote a newly published book by creating an article about it on Wikipedia. Alf Boggis 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, non-notable. yandman 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This nomination was incomplete. I have now completed it. --Pak21 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep,I posted original entry, see talk for reasonsThe Glory Boy 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: this user's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to create this article and links to it. --Pak21 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently stands, although prepared to change my view if some evidence of notability can be shown --Pak21 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable book, published by a major publisher. Respectable Amazon (UK) rank of 9,125. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedically notable book. Wikipedia is not a library directory or Amazon.com. Possible promotional abuse of wikipedia. Current Amazon UK rank is not high enough to comfortably and convincingly show encyclopedic notability.. Bwithh 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep? (on probation?) Apart from that the intro has a sticky salesman feel to it, (and this is copy/pasted into the corresponding linklist), the 5star parade section could have some value, and it doesn't seem more suspect than many other books in the same category.. If kept though, maybe ought to change its name to The Video Games Guide (book)..? Murgh 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable.--Stone 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Can't see having a page for every book of this notability here. Might be a case for this book here in the future after it becomes a commonly cited resource outside of Wikipedia. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just an advert for an as yet non-notable book. With any luck deletion will also put a stop to page's author spamming up the rest of wikipedia with links to it. CiaranG 18:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I saw the book in a store at the weekend and while it looks pretty, it has non-notable written all over it. I can't believe that it will ever be notable, and the original article's creator will not make any friends by creating links throughout WP. I'd almost suggest preventing re-creation, but I suppose it's theoretically possible that this book might become notable, in the same way as English As She Is Spoke became notable. Ringbark 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Without actually having read the book (has anyone else here?) I don't see the need to delete this article at this point. The book has rissen to rank of 4,069 at Amazon UK. --Frodet 20:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Book is too new to have garnered notability. Try back in a year. —Psychonaut 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: which above? The arguments made by The Glory Boy/Murgh, and Andrew Lenahan/Frodet differ significantly. Cheers --Pak21 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • All of them, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: not (yet) notable enough to merit an entry. It has shot up the Amazon sales list since yesterday (when I clocked it at 25,000), but that's hardly significant. I very much agree with Ringbark about The Glory Boy's efforts to promote it in other articles - that's not helping. However, as it's this user's first effort at creating content, I'd like to say "well done, please keep editing, but please also be aware of issues of notability in the future"; and don't get too attached to a particular page you've created. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with pak21 et al. Self-promo. --BACbKA 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think that it's self promotional (Pak21 doesn't say this above). From comments The Glory Boy has made elsewhere, it does not appear that he/she is the book's author. I think this article can be deleted on other grounds. --Plumbago 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no grounds to delete this article because it is an advertisement for the book. Just because it is the person's first entry is not proof that it was done so. --Pinkkeith 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOT#SOAP On the contrary: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Ringbark 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Commment I do agree that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. I was just stating that I don't see any reason to suggest that this article is advertising. If just talking about any subject is considered to be advertising then every single article in Wikipedia is advertising. --Pinkkeith 13:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Detete: Definitely feel that this should be removed, and I agree with the prior comment.~Cnota 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I agree with the objections of WP:NOT a soapbox, but the article is not neccessarily pure advert. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no indication that this book is significant, regardless of possibility of it bein an advert. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:18, 14 November 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.