Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAS Games

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 no consensus.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAS Games

I've proposed this article for deletion since it appears to be promotional material from an account whose sole purpose is to promote this website. Until a few hours ago, the article's sole contributor was a user coincidentally named "DASGames". This user has no other edits. "DASGames" deleted the {{prod}} tag shortly after I added it, and again later on, both times without discussion.

It's since been edited by anonymous IPs whose recent edits only have to do with the site in question, and one or two by what may be a sockpuppet account.

I expect the {{afd}} tag on the page to be deleted without discussion, just as the prod tags were. But he'll be unable to erase this page. --Mr. Billion 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with removing PROD tags, with or without discussion. You should not have replaced it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec, this is a fairly easy mistake to make - I did precisely the same thing when I first involved myself in the AfD process. No need to bite him for making a silly mistake. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it's promotional/vanity. --Mr. Billion 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Why'd you add that? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm sorry, I am new to Wikipedia, and I did not know how to explain myself. Yes, I am the owner of DAS Games... but I did not create the page to promote my site. I made the page so new members of my site, and anyone interested, can see the history of it, and edit it as new events happen. Those accounts were not sockpuppets, but members of my forums trying to contribute to the site's page. I did mostly all of the page myself, yes, but I just laid down the basics. I'm now leaving it up to however wants to in the future to edit and improve on it.

I'm for any trouble or misunderstandings. --DASGames

- What you did seems to be more or less an innocent mistake. Wikipedia discourages people writing about themselves or their own creations, but it is not forbidden. In any case, the article seems to be reasonably neutral, which is one of our most important goals. I'd say the biggest problem about keeping this article is that DAS Games is not notable under our standard for web sites. I suspect this is what the nominator meant by the article being "promotional", though perhaps it could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. My first AFD. Thanks! --Mr. Billion 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I added some changes to the page myself. I am not DAS Games or representing the site. There's no need to delete this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walnoj (talk • contribs)

I copied Walnoj's comment from this AfD's talk page. It was clearly meant to be placed here. It is Walnoj's second edit.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~change to neutral below per notability concerns expressed in my comment above.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep They were mentioned on G4 which is basically the top of gaming news commercially. If they can prove other sites they have been used as sources for that would further support it. I would remove the evolution of the page and list of editors etc as its very self promoting and doesnt speak about the content or stories the site has broke or other major sites that use or have used DAS Gaming for sources. Agreements or hosting etc for Nintendo or major companies would also help establish notoriety. I would give it time to grow some more. But based on the G4 and Joystiq, both major sites I think it should be kept. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would reccomend to the authors that contribute or want it kept that they provide some more information that may be helpful to this discussion as per WP:WEB specifically, unique hits, member count etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being featured on Attack of the Show is impressive, as is the long list of (I assume; could easily be wrong) independent contributors. The article could stand to be improved — while its author has clearly done his best (well done), it's still quite evident that the site's creator was heavily involved in the article just from reading it — however, I don't see a good reason to delete it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Attack of the Show. Being featured there implies notability. It needs cleanup, but a delete is not necessary. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Peephole 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEB. With all due respect to the owner of the company, who obviously worked hard on the article, being mentioned on Attack of the Show! does not make one notable. Every day, AotS shows half a dozen YouTube videos or funny web sites, and in no way does that make any of them notable. They have a "MySpace Girl of the Week" contest every week- does this mean that those three girls are all notable enough to be on WP? No. I love AotS, but a program on a not-particularly-popular cable/sattelite channel is merely one reference, and I wouldn't even call that reference point a reliable source. This article is simply an advertisement for a non-notable web site, and nothing more. -- Kicking222 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight difference in being pointed and laughed at and being used as a source of information. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, even if we accept this mention as a reference from a reliable source, the site still fails WP:WEB, which 1) requires multiple independent references, and 2) excludes trivial coverage. -- Kicking222 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, I did not make a Wikipedia page to promote my site. I didn't even think that being mentioned on AOTS was that big of a deal, it was just a piece of the web site's history worth mentioning, in my opinion. I made this page as an archive for newcomers to my site, and in no way intended for it to come across as biased, or as an advertisement. --DASGames

If you really really need a page to put the history of your site for newcomers, why not place it on your site? Wikipedia isn't a free hosting service. --ColourBurst 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want anyone to be able to edit it though, isn't that what makes Wikipedia what it is?

Then I'm slightly confused. History is an immobile thing, so why would you want people to edit it? And anyways, Wikipedia isn't the only site where anybody can edit - if you need something like that on your own site, there's a list, and you can install one of those programs on your server. --ColourBurst 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm withdrawing my vote because there are strong arguments on both sides and I no longer feel familiar enough with these sources to make an informed judgment. Incidentally, even if the author created a non-neutral article to promote his site (and I don't believe he did), that is, by Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not a reason to delete but an issue to improve. Whatever his motives and relationship with the site, they are not important to this discussion, but to a discussion about NPOV if the article is kept.--Kchase T 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an Alexa ranking of over 1,000,000 leaves me unconvinced that this site is notable enough to warrant inclusion. No apparent notability: its forums have a massive 153 users registered... RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus if it is non promotional why is there an external link to DAS Games Merchandise in external links? ←Σc o Phreek→ 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I was new to Wiki editing, and I modeled my site page after Smosh. And I still dont understand. How long will this debate last, and who decides the final verdict? --DASGames
  - It "goes on" for approx 5 days unless it's a WP:SNOW See also:here ←Σc o Phreek→ 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment DAS - an admin will come through in a few days, review the arguments and decide which side has the stronger case, and make the decision from there (either keep, delete, or no consensus, which defaults to keep). As far as content and style goes, your article is ok for a starting point, and that's not really the issue here. The real difference beteen DAS Games and Smoosh is the significant media coverage Smoosh has received, as evidenced on that page. JoshWook 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Although I'm usually skeptical of website owners creating wikipedia articles about their own products, it really doesn't look like a vanity article. Could use quite a bit of cleanup, but it talks about the site from a NPOV and the creator is obviously working in good faith. Still, notability is a concern, and wikipedia is admittedly not a web directory. On the fence, I guess, but why not? Note to Daylon - as ColourBurst mentioned, if all you want is the wiki software and you can host the site yourself, it is freely available. It would probably be a better option for you anyways, since you've stated that you intended the article to primarily be for your users. JoshWook 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precident set by GraalOnline delete and deletion endorsed at review. Very similar policy involved (primary sources, WP:SOFTWARE) Daniel.Bryant 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.