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 Gnangarra 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Video Games

Awesome Video Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability sort of barely kinda indicated. But unless there's any serious indication of non-trivial, third-party coverage, this appears to be yet-another YouTube podcast. Pichpich (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AVG is owned by Wipido.com which is a division of the Time Warner Broadcasting Company. With hundreds of thousands of channel views, and over one million video views documented on YouTube alone, notoriety isn't debatable. AVG has been featured on the front page of several popular websites, such as Newgrounds, Yahoo Video, and has received an entertainment feature on YouTube.--Draconic86 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And give this article a chance. You swooped down looking for free and 'easy' brownie points less than 24 hours after this was even created. SashaNein (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popularity on Newgrounds and YouTube is completely irrelevant (both sites fail WP:RS), as is any sponsorship. Notability is not the same as notoriety. To be included on Wikipedia, something must be the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple independant, reliable sources. No evidence has been produced that Awesome Video Games meets this criterion, so the article should be deleted. Additionally, look at what this, this, and this have in common... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latischolar (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources. Kotaku is a blog (though probably one of the more noteworthy ones), and thus not a reliable source per WP:RS. Huon (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not 100% so: "use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered." The author's credentials check out, but can the particular article cited for this discussion really be considered "non-trivial" coverage per guidelines? —Latischolartalkcontributions 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read about "non-trivial" sources on wikipedia, the Kotaku article does not have this counted against it at all. Contrary to popular belief, "Durr even though it's from a reliable source, it's a video game article about video game stuff" does not make it a 'trivial' source that needs to be thrown out. SashaNein (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, you are misrepresenting WP:VG's position on the reliability of Kotaku. The project page states that, at best, Kotaku articles can be reliable, but their use must be carefully considered. This is notably different from other sources listed on the page. Asserting an endorsement of strong inherent reliability is misleading and misrepresentative of community consensus. Second, your attribution of my concern about triviality to bias against "video game stuff" is unfounded. Your disrespectful "durr" additionally demonstrates pointed unconcern for civility as a mocking attack against my intelligence: please refrain from this in the future and do not put words in my mouth again. The Kotaku article is trivial because its only coverage of the subject amounts to little more than, "Hey, Craig told me about this and I thought you should check it out." The article is nothing more than a brief mention of Awesome Video Games (which, by the way, had to be solicited by its creators) with no substantial coverage. Notable subjects do not need their creators to ask acquaintances to write about them in their blogs, and if this is the best coverage of the series there is, the Wikipedia article has no right to exist. —Latischolartalkcontributions 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected on blogs not being reliable sources in general (thanks for pointing that out!); still I don't see this Kotaku piece as establishing notability. That review seems to have been invited by people connected with its production who, judging from its tone, may be acquaintances of the review's author. There is rather little actual content, and (while maybe that's just me) I was unable to verify the author's credentials, if any. Huon (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be reading too far into it. Jack Thompson and Brian Ashcraft (or Crecente.. one of them) play 'email tag' all the time, but it doesn't make the Kotaku articles about him any less credible just because they may be perecived as acquaintances. SashaNein (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep — Looking past the apparent meatpuppetry and WP:IDONTLIKEIT accusations, this article was created on July 7, 2008 (2008-07-07) and nominated for AfD on July 8, 2008 (2008-07-08), as User:SashaNein mentioned above. With that being said, we need to give the article the opportunity to show notability. With that also being said, the creator of this article should have also been prepared to show notability on the onset. While I do agree with the arguments for deletion, the timing and circumstances of this AfD nomination is out of place; and therefore it should be kept to give extra time for whomever is working on this article to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Per agreement to hold discussion for several days until more information could be found, nothing has been done to improve this article between now and then. Hence, I change my opinion to delete. The article's author has now been given ample time to show and proof of verifiable, third-party sources, and the article shows nothing to show forth compared to before the 2nd nomination for AfD. MuZemike (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several substantial contributors to the article have been passionately trying to do just that. No new sources establishing notability have been brought forward. When the series is the subject of reliable, third-party coverage per WP:N and WP:RS, then the article will be acceptable for inclusion at that time, but not sooner. —Latischolartalkcontributions 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's not deleted again in less than 24 hours of another creation. Otherwise, I'd agree. I'm sorry, but when someone nominates a newly-created article for AfD less than 24 hours after its creation, something is not right. The people working on this article have virtually very little to no time to do any type of research for notability (and I'm not talking about giving up after finding nothing on Google; newspapers, magazines, etc. can likely have reviews on this show — stuff that is not necessarily easily found by simply typing "Awesome Video Games" in the search box of Google. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is plenty of time to gather this information: before creating the article. The "no page with that title exists" page tells editors to 1) read Wikipedia:Your first article, 2) Gather references to the source(s) of your information, and 3) Create the page including your references. The article creation page also clearly says: "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.". Clearly, references are supposed to be provided when the article is created, not after notability or verifiability or reliability of sources is questioned by someone patrolling new pages, and a consequence for failing to do so, deletion, is disclosed. Quoting Wikipedia:Your first article: "Articles that do not meet notability by citing reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." —Latischolartalkcontributions 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AFD runs for five days. That would give the article supporters six days to find sources that satisfy WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. If such sources are not available, then deleting the article six days after creation is perfectly valid. Resolute 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Whether users Bslashingu, IGAmazingbob or I are "meat puppets" is irrelevant, if the points we make are true. My references to "popularity on Youtube/Yahoo/NewGrounds/Revver" are valid, as rather than pointing to a number of views asserted by YouTube (etc), they are verifiable, documented facts and events. --99.10.67.223 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia policy dictates that YouTube, Newgrounds, Revver and sites like these are unacceptable sources of documentation. See WP:Reliable source examples. Notability requires independant, non-trivial coverage of the subject to pass WP:RS. So sorry, the references to popularity are not valid. I'm a fan of the show myself, but the lack of reliable third-party coverage means that, at present, it is just not acceptable for Wikipedia. —Latischolartalkcontributions 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll further add to that, quoting from AfD guidelines: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can provide some evidence towards the series' coverage in other mediums, as it has been featured on a multitude of websites, television programs, and magazines, but the article was marked for deletion so quickly, that we all panicked trying to compile our sources. We don't really have much free time to spend towards editing the Wikipedia article, so we thought that we could just put together all of the sources for that as we go along. But as soon as that Articles for Deletion notice popped up we all scrambled to try and pull everything we knew from memory. --Bslashingu (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what happens when sources are not gathered before creating an article. :) I don't have a problem if the deletion decision is put on hold for a while (this, however, is not the same as "keep") to give you time to find those other sources. If your statement about the show being featured in "a multitude" of coverage is correct, establishing sufficient notability shouldn't be too difficult. Magazines in particular are great sources. But please read WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples very carefully. Even very popular web content may be an unsuitable subject for Wikipedia because of the guidelines. If sufficient sources are found in a reasonable period of time, I'll change my recommendation to keep. Consensus to stay the decision for a while, everyone? —Latischolartalkcontributions 01:30, 9 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Awesome_Video_Games
No tags for this post.