Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatIfGaming

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 speedily deleted (A7) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WhatIfGaming

WhatIfGaming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable gaming site with no legit refs. Created by someone who has a possible Conflict of Interest in the article. BoL (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Response: I think you're severely mistaken, and I'm just a reader--so there are no "conflicts of interest." The site gets nearly 1.5 million hits, and is sponsored by all the major gaming sites, and has many things coming up. Also, do your proper searches via N4G before nominating it and labeling it as a "non-notable" aka corporate fanboy gaming site. Seriously, grow up. Also see the AwStats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:March08awstats.jpg. And learn to use N4G.com--as they have had countless articles on there that got above 950 degrees. Also, they're doing an interview with Rockstar soon. Also, their Alexa score is high--showing a lot of IE users (15% of their readership) go there. Google analytics shows the rank as high as well. Learn to search. This isn't an attack. It's telling you to learn something before you go around reporting stuff you don't even have the facts straight for. Also stop harassing me and deal with the fact that you messed up. And they are referenced by COUNTLESS sites including maxconsole, jeuxfrance, and JOYSTIQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they have to be notable. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. BoL (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
CommentDude - calm down theres no need to tell anyone else to grow up. First of all there are no reliable sources that arent biased. Show me the source that states it gets 1.5 million hits. By the way - before you tell anyone to go "learn something" you clearly have no reliable sources. BTW where did that graph come from? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Oh okay..so see I thought them being referenced by other blogs like Joystiq, maxconsole, GoNintendo, (and sites like PSU) gave it some credibility. Also the graph came from the owner through a press forum, which you guys don't have access to, but I do since I handle press stuff for the community site the owner revealed it on. Also look at Google Analysis ...and the Alexa (showing that 15% of the users are IE users and visit it)...the ranks are fairly high. Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet. Something I just noticed. That doesn't happen out of the sky. Also check all their posts on News 4 Gamers (a gaming community site). They are very well established. I can't show you sources for their numbers...what gaming site wiki SHOWS that? This is seriously ridiculous to be honest. It's like asking 1UP to show their "reliability" sources. They've been around the web, and so had this site..especially on N4G. I can't really "add sources" anymore than I have. WP:Blogs.

What I can do is removed the # sources. But the site itself is notable and reliable.

"which you guys don't have access to" Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I removed the # references completely. The rest are just facts about the site itself if that's fine J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet

I could get a ad with sony, if I paid $1000 million PS can you sign cause its creating heaps of edit conflicts Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I actually just see that GoogleBots are rejected ping to the site itself..and the site doesn't have an Alexa tracker..but an AwStats one. So, the only way to prove it is if the website owner disclosed the stats themselves via AwStats. If it helps---they did MENTION their numbers in one post (I think). But I removed all the # references.

—Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs)

Haha, thanks for telling me how to do that. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you J. If you need to delete it, then delete it. But I just have to say that...the article is just facts about the site itself, and they have a ton of news posts, references from Maxconsole, joystiq, XBOX360 fanboy, and n4g + PSU---basically on a lot of places and have interviews going on with huge game publishers. As for the number sources, sorry I disclosed closed information not available to public. Should have known better. Aside from that, that's all I got. Thanks for hearing me out. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Inconsistent sources are being raised here, I searched N4G and the site appears ot be scraping articles FROM this site, not writing ABOUT this site. I then searched the archives at Joystiq and found nothing but scrapes of the scrapes from N4G under a search heading of "Google Results" when looking for the phrase "WhatIfGaming". On 360 Fanboy I could only find this single trivial mention [1] which provides no real context for notability. The other mentions didn't offer anything better. The Alexa rank you are talking about is currently sitting at a one week average of 924,950. To compare, Joystiq.com sits at 3,480 (lower is higher traffic). I would venture to say that the kind of traffic numbers you're talking about wouldn't make something notable on that alone anyway, even if the traffic stats weren't WP:OR original research. To continue, I can't locate any reliable, non-trivial sources to assert any kind of notability at this time using either yahoo or google, in fact there is very little on the site at all in search results; many of the results in the first few pages reference this article and the related discussion. In fact google has weighted N4G's scrape of RSS items from this site at a higher position than the domain itself [2]. Confirmed by a whois [3] the site itself is only one month or so old. This all adds up to me as failing WP:N by a wide margin. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's written like an advertisement and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. I know it can be annoying to hear someone call a site "non-notable", but telling editors to "grow up" and saying "learn to search" and "deal with the fact you messed up" is not going to persuade people to keep this article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's simply an article about a gaming website with facts about it. I took out the # references etc. It should not be deleted IMO, but w/e. Also I already stated they are blocking alexa sprawlers--etc. So those stats are inaccurate that you're getting from Alexa. Refer to their FAQ. Also you aren't searching right if all you could find was 1 mention. And even so, those huge media owned sites don't just link to sites that they know are not notable. Also I stated already they blocked google sprawlers apparently, so using a link:http:// won't work...and bring up minimum results. The site has amazing content, it has references, and it has notability. Maybe not according to Wikipedia standards, but to gaming standards it definitely does. I'll keep arguing this same position for any other requests to delete it (so refer back to this post again and again), but I refuse to let it be deleted unless an admin feels otherwise. Consider this my statement for all delete requests now. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's notability standards WP:N and wikipedia's notability standards for websites WP:WEB.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, if these articles are so easy to find and in such abundance you could clear this all up very quickly by linking to them directly in this debate. Please do not link to the main site, link only to the exact articles you are talking about.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Okay Torchwood. I read the WP:N more, and I have some questions so we can resolve this. I understand that WP's guideline of notability, is not necessarily the same thing as fame, etc etc. A website can be famous..and not be detailed on Wikipedia unless, if I read correctly, outside 3rd party sources specifically speak about that subject in detail. Now..is this to say that...any subject matter, which has not extensively or at all covered by a WP:Reliable source is not notable enough to be added to the Wikipedia encyclopedia? If I got this all right, I will agree to deletion because I was under the impression that we can add info about a website.....in general...like a biography of literally any website we choose. Because I'm not really understanding your reason for asking for it to be deleted. It kind of sounds like to me that you're trying to delete information about a site's bground, etc---and claiming the site is a huge farce..and copied/pasted...and completely fake and unreal, which is just not true at all. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be an advertisement. Redrocket (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's background information on a site. How is it an "advertisement." I don't understand your logic. Since when was describing a site, it's review policy, and all that--an advertisement? Btw, n4g is a community of gamers who only approve news they believe to be noteworthy from reliable sources (strict guidelines) and requires 10 approvals PER article. Here are just the MAIN ones this site is covered in (Excluding reference sources under other stories already--which are countless):

http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126912.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-131373.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-128215.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127397.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127389.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126909.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126913.aspx

That's literally in an excess of 70 people who approve anything the site has to say. DavidGamingeff (talk)

How is it an "advertisement"? Because it's written like an advertisement. Instead of trying to argue with every single person who disagrees with you, why don't you just cleanup the article and add your references to it? Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got word from Torchwood: "I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)"

I agree to the terms of deleting this. I just understood the guidelines. Thank you torchwood who! I appreciate your awesomeness in the matter. DavidGamingeff (talk)

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.