Jump to content

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

Add links
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. - Keep arguments fail to show how article does pass WP:WEB, instead stating that it does without ever showing why. Proto::► 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GuildCafe (2nd nomination)

[edit]
GuildCafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review for lack of evidence that the subject meets WP:WEB and is now back for discussion of possible sourcing for this article. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doesn't describe it as a forum, so I don't know what the forum's activity level (a subcomponent of the site) has to do with anything.
  • No, but thats an indication of the notability level of the site. Were a site truly notable you'd see a lot more than 28 active members on a forum that is part of it.--Crossmr 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem that I see is that this site is not notable, no matter how much media coverage it got. Wikipedia is not a mirror of AP/Reuters/etc- every story and subject that gets media coverage is not inherently notable (this is where WP:N really fails in my opinion). Is the subject worthy of the coverage it received? No, it's not. The sources that covered it are extremely questionable in this case. They all merely re-worded or expanded upon information in the press releases. Like most gaming news websites, they pick up any crap story they can get. --- RockMFR 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Tarinth. I looked at the references and read through the referenced articles. For the most part they appear to be independent of the subject and the discussions are non-trivial. I think that there is some confusion in MaxSem's premise, since the company was renamed recently. I think that evaluators are confusing the word "notable" with "prominent." This appears to meet the WP guidelines for being notable and the references are sound. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The references cited are blogs, forums or rehashes of the press release. None of those satisfy WP:WEB.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see good references, satisfying WP:WEB. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which good references would those be? This was an issue with the original discussion and there were claims of good references, but none of them have actually been cited.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm the original author of the article, although it has been crufted out quite a bit since I wrote it. Still, the reason I wrote it is that it is a video game development company founded by a notable person, Jon Radoff, who wrote one of the first MMORPGs, and because I found reliable sources to write the article. For example, Gamasutra, the most respectable online video game publication. More: Gamespot, Gamedaily, Next Generation. Note that this company is not just a social networking service, they are also developing video games themselves. [1] JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 19:24
    and each one of those are rehashes of the press release which fails WP:WEB in terms of notability. There hasn't been any non-trivial coverage shown per the guidelines which indicates this website is remotely notable.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like stated, when I wrote the article I was not even aware there was going to be a website related with the company. I wrote an arcicle about a video game development company started by a notable person. The fact that they also have a website would not warrant an article on its own, and if that was all that is there to this company I would certainly agree that WP:WEB would apply, but it's not the case. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 02:44
Unfortunately we're discussing the article as it is now, not how you intended it when it created. The article focuses solely on the website with a trivial mention of its past and creator. That is what the discussion has to be based on unless you have an alternate version of the article to put forth which meets notability and verifiability guidelines.--Crossmr 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment I've cleaned up the sources somewhat. I'll try to improve the article somewhat more in the following days. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 03:34
Cleaning them up and how they are listed is not the issue. Its what they are. No matter how they're listed, displayed or organized, it doesn't change the fact that they don't qualify as multiple non-trivial mentions.--Crossmr 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that it would make a difference. Since this AfD is mainly about the sources I just cleaned them up, nothing more, nothing less. We clearly disagree about the viability of these sources, but I just wanted to say I've cleaned them up and will be improving the article over the coming days. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 04:57
The AfD is mainly about the notability, and the lack of sources which speak to that. Its not about the way the sources are displayed on the page. While reprints of the press release are reliable, they do not establish notability per WP:WEB. Its quite clear about that. --Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides their social networking stuff they have announced that they are working on the GuildCafe Platform, which will be middleware (something like RenderWare, but then for MMORPGs). I agree that the article will be better once more information on that product becomes available. Regarding notability, the founder (Jon Radoff) is notable enough, which is why I felt this article was warranted when I originally wrote it. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 07:04
  • If you want to address it as a business, WP:CORP covers notability for that, and has similar criteria which this company still doesn't meet. If it ever gains that notability I have no problem with it being here, but right now it just does not have it.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gamers.com, Gamasutra, and others are established Video Gaming News Sites. Just because its news that only certain people are interested in doesn't make it trivial. JN322 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And those are all just rehashes of the press release which per WP:WEB makes them trivial coverage. It doesn't matter who is or isn't interested in the website, there have been no sources provided which satisfy that criteria.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not all of them. GameDaily's coverage for example is more indepth. (GameDaily is AOL's video game industry news site). JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 16:54
    Which is a single non-trivial item. The notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial coverage. Find another example of in depth non-trivial coverage and I'll happily withdraw the AfD.--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And even this is again a blog. In depth or not. Gamedaily does publish stories in a non-blog form and in fact Steve Wong has written articles as such [2]. It being relegated to his blog indicates to me that it wasn't even notable enough for regular coverage.--Crossmr 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the reason that it is in blog format is because it is less notable, but because the article (appraisal of another games website) isn't typical of what GameDaily would publish. Infomanager 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have something to back that up? You've basically made my point for me. This isn't something Gamedaily covers, so just because one of their staff have used their professional blog to write about it doesn't lend any credibility to it. The reason blogs can't be used as a reliable source for information is the lack of editorial oversight and the fact that its a self-published source. Do we have any evidence that Gamedaily approves what they can write in their blogs and edits them? If not, the blog is not only useless to gauge notability its useless as a reliable source.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken those sources are able to choose to publish a press release or not. The fact that they have chosen to do so would indicate to me that people in the field feel it is newsworthy. Is it any different than news organizations getting news from the AP? Although obviously on a smaller scale.JN322 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines specifically address reprints of the press release. It makes no exception for how many or who reprints the press release. The only possibly exception I might see (which still isn't addressed by the guidelines) in that was if a major print magazine actually devoted valuable unpaid space to reprinting the press release and commenting on it/expanding on it. Otherwise it costs a website next to nothing to tack up their press release. Which is why its not considered for notability.--Crossmr 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can see how references 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 could be considered trivial, however 5 is an interview by Game Daily (12th hit in Google search for "game news") with the GuildCafe's founder. 7 compares GuildCafe to other MMO/Game social networking sites by O'Reilly (I certainly run into O'Reilly online and in print regularly), if I was to come to this article not having read it before and compared it to WP:WEB I would say it barely meets the guidelines - but barely is good enough as long as the article is added too as more information becomes public. All references correct at the time and date of this comment. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The O'Reilly mention is trivial. It mentions it only in passing and doesn't actually cover the site, it simply lists it as one of many examples. This is not in depth coverage of the topic as required by the notability guidelines, its also a blog, whether that blog is is on a notable site is immaterial unless the blog is used to source information about the writer or their product.--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:WEB & WP:RS #1. References #4 and #5 (Next-Generation and GameDaily) are considered among the best videogame sources in the industry. I feel that they are both reliable sources. GameDaily's article is in-depth and covers the website extensively; the reason that is in blog format is because it is an appraisal of another website. Next-Generation got its information from the press release but they are notoriously strict with what they cover (and usually only write 4-5 stories a day). If this got attention, that is enough for me. Infomanager 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit its a rehash of the press release. WP:WEB clearly indicates that does not give a site notability. It makes no exception for who carries the press release. This is basically the same thing which occurred in the last AfD. Several individuals claiming coverage was notable when the guideline clearly indicates that it is not. You can call the sky green all day, but in the end its still blue. The guideline clearly states that kind of coverage is not acceptable to indicate a site is notable, regardless of how picky you claim the site is. The simple fact that you have to make your argument not on the coverage of the site, but the site which ran the non-notable coverage indicates how non-notable this site is.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Next-Generation got the information from "rehashing" the press release. Gamedaily's article is all their own writing. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamedaily's article is a blog posting. There is no assertion of editorial oversight per WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources which doesn't make this a particularly reliable source, as well WP:RS#Self-published_sources addresses this. If the topic he was writing about in his blog was truly notable and worth reporting it would have been done. As this is the sole claim to non-trivial coverage I don't see that happening here.--Crossmr 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per infomanager and Tarinth. Meets WP:WEB, WP:RS. Alan Shatte 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which they've been continually shown not to. There hasn't been a single source shown which is non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An entire article (Gamedaily) is non-trivial coverage and it is a reliable source. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the strength of the Gamedaily coverage. However, WP:WEB does require multiple non-trivial sources and this article only has one. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionWouldn't the gamedaily coverage (it being a part of AOL) it being a well-known of electronic publication cause this to fall under WP:WEB #3?JN322 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - GameDaily article passes WP:RS, WP:WEB met per Next-Generation and GameDaily Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whats your basis for Gamedaily passing WP:RS? Where is the assertion of editorial oversight? As well its already shown that Next-Gen is a rehash of the press release which specifically doesn't pass WP:WEB. At best they have a very tenuous connection to one piece of coverage which may be non-trivial. The fact that no one else has covered in in depth takes away from the reliability of the Gamedaily blog posting (which is addressed in WP:RS)--Crossmr 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    GameDaily XL predominantly bears the GameDaily name. Any questionable content that appears there would reflect poorly on the website as a whole, not just the blog. The same editors contribute to both domains. I see this more of a ps3.ign.com and ps2.ign.com thing than ign.com and totally-unrelated-website.com. Joel Jimenez 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your assumption. They may say "Post whatever you want so long as you don't do anything illegal or say anything that could get us in trouble". I see nothing there that would evidence that their letting any particular blog posting stand is an endorsement of that blog posting. WP:RS requires an assertion of editorial oversight not a conclusion drawn by an editor. WP:RS also states that any self-published material not covered by other sources is much less reliable. Also AfD is not a vote, summarizing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is your assumption! We don't know which of us is right. Because the same editors contribute to both websites you can make a decent argument for oversight. Further, this is not self-published so I'm not sure why you brought this up. Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the point. You want to include it as a source therefore per WP:V the burden of evidence lies with you to prove that the blog posting is a reliable source that can prove notability. That the site approves or otherwise lends credibility to the posting and doesn't just let them post whatever they want with no liability.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the Next-Generation article is not a re-hash of the press release. Compare Next-Generation's article] with this [re-hash of the press release on GameZone]. There isn't a phrase lifted from the press release in their article. They obviously had tog et the information from somewhere, but I think that we both agree that Guildcafe is a reliable and verifiable source for stuff regarding Guildcafe.Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They both include the same paragraph quote at the end and both say the same thing only slightly reworded. Next-gens coverage is no different than the other site only with a rewording. WP:WEB also addresses the trivial coverage on next gen with this statement a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or. That is all that is, and its very clearly indicated on WP:WEB that that is trivial coverage which cannot be used to establish notability. Guildcafe is fine as a source for info on guildcafe, but as reliable as the article may be, there is no notability per the guidelines. And I will remind you one more time that AfD is a discusion not a vote and listing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not list a vote count. I said that the comments above started with a particular word, which they did. If you interpret them as votes (and you shouldn't because AfD is not a vote, right) that is your own fault. Joel Jimenez 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to delete - I Googled for the past several minutes and couldn't find any other notices. No mention on IGN, GameSpot or websites for magaiznes such as Gameinformer, EGM (via 1UP) or Gamepro. Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Infomanager DelPlaya 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As its been pointed out Next-gen is trivial coverage per WP:WEB very clearly addressed as just a brief summary of the content of the site and a reprint of the press release. And no-one has demonstrated where the assertion of editorial oversight is on the gamedaily blog.--Crossmr 17:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The following statement is linked from the bottom of every page in what you are calling the "GameDaily blog": http://www.gamedaily.com/contact-us . This page documents an editorial staff. The top of every page includes an American Online an logo. Further, I'm unable to find any disclaimer that states that "blog" content does not reflect the opinions of the editorial staff. Even if this editorial information was only linked from the main page of the GameDaily site, I would argue that it is unreasonable to ask that every sub-section of a site contain a separate assertion of editorial authority. It's clear that the staff and writers of any part of the site are subject to management by an editorial staff, and ultimately answerable to the corporate oversite of America Online. A similar structure is common in many websites in general, and the gaming media in particular. Tarinth 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can all agree a blog is a self-published source. For it not to be a self-published source it needs to include an assertion of editorial oversight. The burden of evidence is on the person wanting the information included, not those wanting it removed. While every page doesn't need any assertion of editorial oversight (like a general story like other stories that write has done and I linked to) any section would could be seen as self-published do. As it is we don't know HOW they run the blog section of their website, so it makes the source suspect. Since we have no other source out there to bolster its credibility that makes it even more suspect. If we had a few other good sources that clearly demonstrated notability, it would lend credibility to the blog entry, and you could be more lax on requiring a mention of editorial oversight. Which is kind of the way that works. There is more than one way you can lend credibility to a blog to be used as a source, but it needs something. Even with something, its still only a single mention at best. Reviewing WP:WEB and the Next-gen article its clearly addressed by WP:WEB as being trivial. It only describes the content and the rest of it is a reprint of the press release.--Crossmr 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree to that at all. If it was his personal blog, on his myspace or livejournal or something, then I would agree. This blog is part of an established company's website, and it would make sense to me that there would be editorial oversight on a commercial page. JN322 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence lies with those who want the material in. We have no idea how that site works and unless there is some evidence to how it works, the source becomes dubious, but even still we don't have a second source. Notability requires more than one incident of non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me pose a hypothetical to you then. If a prosecutor calls a witness who states "I saw the defendant commit the crime". Then you would argue that the witness's testimony shouldn't be admitted until the prosecution can somehow prove the witness isnt' moved by mercenary motives or isn't some sort of pathological liar? From this matter stands presently it would appear to me that it is an internet publication of AOL (certainly well-known and independant of GuildCafe) and the website's contents has editors (thereby editorial insight), and accordingly it is reliable, and would fall under WP:WEB #3. But then again, I'm not too familiar with these rules. (forgive my poor grammer, I just got home from a lacrosse game and I'm still a bit alcoholified)JN322 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. In this case we have a source which is normally not allowed at all, a blog. Regardless of where its hosted. These are typically only allowed as sources in a very limited capacity in sourcing something about the writer, i.e. the author of that article warranted an article on wikipedia and announced he had cancer in it, that could be used as a source for that. In order for it to be used as a source for anything else it has to meet one of the criteria in WP:RS which give it credibility, so far it only meets things which take away from credibility, namely the fact that no other site has deemed the subject notable enough for any in depth coverage. One can easily assume that in a publication the stories which are "printed" as stories have editors. If you want to draw the conclusion that that means all blog postings have editors and get their content approved, you can do that, but you need something to back it up. As I pointed out above, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to say "Post what you want so long as its not anything that is going to get the company in trouble".--Crossmr 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess since you don't want to look at his blog as having editorial insight (which is your guess, and something we still dont' know for sure yet) then Under WP:RS we have "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications...". The author of that blog is a well-known net journalist covering gaming information (he's not interviewing presidents, but he's ceratainly a professional in his field). Accordingly since the author of the article is an established online journalist, even his blog can be said to be a reliable source. JN322 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is it you're using to establish that he's a well known journalist? As far as Steven wong's go, he doesn't show up to the second page [3]. And he seems to have written only a very tiny amount of articles for gamedaily [4]. Most of those results are pages which have "most recent bloggers" listed on the right hand column. He only made his first blog post in november, and doesn't seem to really be there before that. Simply writing a couple articles for an internet game site doesn't make one a well known journalist. See Hunter S. Thompson if you want an example of a well known journalist.--Crossmr 03:38, 8 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GuildCafe_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079948496"