Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 17 May 2007 (→‎[[PGNx Media]]: Add AfDs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

17 May 2007

PGNx Media

PGNx Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2|DRV|AfD3)

Original Request

  • I want to add the following article: [1] (if there is a better way to show the original article please let me know)
    • Website notability has been proven with Spider-Man 3 controversy an Gamasutra article
  • Notability concerns:
    • Review archive: nearly 1,300 reviews, 33rd largest (all print and online sources), 21st largest (active online) [2]
    • Gamasutra article where content from website is compared to content from GameSpot: [3]
    • Articles where it is primary subject: Joystiq [4]; BBPS [5]; Videolamer [6]
    • Mentioned in high-profile websites: Penny-Arcade (who also devoted 7 minutes of its podcast to the website) [7]
    • Reviews syndication on: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Gamerankings, GameStats and Gametab
    • WEB #3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster
* PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes, which is well known, owned by IGN Entertainment (whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc) and qualifies as an online publisher --> three requirements for WEB #3
  • Deletion process concern
  • Note: This deletion review proposal has been linked to on the talk pages of the closing administrator, those who participated in the latest articles for deletion discussion, as well as those who participated in the article's talk page.

Arielguzman 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note by closing admin Arielguzman (talk · contribs) is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of Infomanager (talk · contribs) (RFCU) and therefore afffiliated with PGNx Media. The prior DRV and the AfD3 were marred by sockpuppetry, so the AfD 3 was cancelled. I have no problems if an unaffiliated editor in good standing writes an article that alleviates the problems brought up in the prior AfD, but as Mikkalai posted on my talk page: "Massive longtime sockpuppetting with commercial purposes is a grave violation. It is not, like, teenagers trying to bend rules of adults. This person must bear full responsibility for his acts. The article must stay deleted until independent request." ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Tah Let U Know (closed)

Hampton Catlin

Hampton Catlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are only two votes in the AfD. The proper course of action would have been to relist it. dcandeto 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunate endorse unless you can provide some sources. It seems like the issue was a lack of those, which are important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there are only two votes in an AfD, there is not a clear consensus. The AfD should have been relisted, not closed. Also, the claim of a conflict of interest in the AfD (namely, that he was editing the article about him) is demonstrably false. dcandeto 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's pretty clear, really. There's no such thing as a quorum here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no consensus in the AfD, either. (If you need more evidence that it was done hastily, note that the other two articles mentioned in it still exist and have AfD notices on them.) dcandeto 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. How many people participate in an AfD is irrelevant if there is no coverage in reliable sources. If anyone else had come along and participated, either they would have said 'delete', or they would have said 'keep' but been discounted for handwaving if they didn't provide any evidence of notability, or they would have been able to provide such evidence, in which case, bring it up here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]