Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thottbot (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thottbot

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Thottbot Articles for deletion/Thottbot (2nd nomination)
Thottbot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and has been put up for deletion several times as no proof of notability has been presented or added to the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, covered in Next Generation magazine, Detroit Free Press, The Inquirer, Gamasutra, and Idaho Statesman.[1]. --Pixelface (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And evidence of notability was given in the last AFD. Thottbot has been discussed in Ethics and Information Technology and the Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society[2]. AFD is not for cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Google hits don't help, you must put some references in the article so this doesn't keep happening, or agree that it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You were present at the first AFD when the Google Scholar references were first brought up. You should see if editors demonstrate notability during AFDs so nominations like this don't keep happening. After that, adding references to the article is a cleanup issue. --Pixelface (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Ghits cannot be accepted as evidence of notability; nor can trivial mentions of the websites in press releases, fansites or brief mentions of the site's content. The content of the article does not have any citations which verify its origins; this leads me to conclude that the article is original research. Since Pixelface has not added evidence of notability to this article, his assertions must be viewed as POV pushing based on WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've provided evidence during this AFD. Should your argument be discounted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Pixelface (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And now I've added it to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gavin. nb: Pixel will keep nearly anything per Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've argued to delete lots of articles. Comment on the content, not the contributor. --Pixelface (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per the updates made since I last viewed the article. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Pixelface. The deletion reason give boils down to "article needs improvement". Needing improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. Reliable sources can be added. That's a reason for an unreferenced or a refimprove tag, not an AfD. Having been put up for deletion multiple times isn't a valid deletion reason either. Unless a valid deletion reason is given, the article should be kept. Rray (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. There has not been, and is not now, any proof that this article has any notability. Google searches do not count, and there needs to be multiple reliable sources. If this material doesn't exist, there is no "cleanup", there is just deletion because articles need to be notable on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean like the fact that this article was viewed 7,501 times in January 2008[3]? And WP:N says topics should be notable, not articles themselves. --Pixelface (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN gamecruft with minimal reliable sources. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable, lots of sources. I question the judgement of all above editors who advocate deletion, and wonder if this amounts to anti-video game bias where objective standards (multiple reliable sources) clearly establish notability. I do not easily make allegations like this, too. User:Krator (t c) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair, when the editors above argued for deletion (and before I added sources) the article looked like this. --Pixelface (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw- FINALLY, this article has established a limited degree of notability. At this point, we should talk about merging not deletion, unless Pixelface believes it can grow further. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to World of Warcraft with all the other WoW infobases. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC) After further consideration I withdraw my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It really does have an Alexa rank of 250. [4]. --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been established. The war on VG content continues, I see. CredoFromStart talk 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been improved upon since the nomination. Meanwhile, the last afD was only three and a half months ago... Watchsmart (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - improvements adequately demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This AFD was withdrawn like 4 days ago and everyone's just voting keep. Where are the non-admin closers when you need them? Anyone? Someoneanother 22:49, 13 March 2008 (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.