Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4G

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 per near-unanimity of well-argued responses. "written like an advertisement" is a WP:PROBLEM independent of the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Gazimoff plausibly addresses OBM's concerns. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N4G

This article about a website lacks notability, neutrality, and the contents of the article itself is very poorly crafted and lacking in content. ryouga.h (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. No References to establish notability whatsoever. However, it appears to me to be like Digg or Fark for gamers. I lean toward Keep as a result of articles like this and a page rank in the 2000s [1], but I probably could be pushed over.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. A list of users has no place here, and perhaps a criticisms/controversy section might be needed for the balanced picture given by the above link. Themfromspace (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User lists are obviously not welcome. When I made it, it was very brief article and there were no users list. I think we should keep it, but modify it. N4g is a big gaming site and so it is good if we have an article about it. kittoo (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Delete as not asserting notability at the moment. It just seems to be one of many web forums; if this isn't the case, then that needs to be demonstrated.OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough one to call. Looking at the notability guidelines for websites, it will be very difficult for N4G to satisfy criterion 1, as it does not produce any content itself but instead relies upon links to the content of others. The website hasn't won a well known or independent award either. The content hasn't been redistributed in an independent mechanism either, as it doesn't have any content of it's own. Having said that, they have been the subject of multiple news articles for either the mechanism used [2][3], or that Future plc bought a share of the company. [4][5][6] With all this in mind, I think the website has garnered some notability but not in the specific areas required by WP:WEB. However, if we take the alternative view that N4G is an organisation as well as a website, then it can also be assesed by the notability guidelines for organisations and coporations, as it has had significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Using WP:CORP as the basis, instead of WP:WEB, it passes notability. Gazi moff_{(mentor/review)} 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff's sources. —Giggy 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Fails WP:ADVERT; written like an advertisement. MuZemike (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (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.