331:. Many of the GBooks results appear to be copies of Knowledge (XXG), and even ignoring that, brief citations without context or significant coverage do not establish notability for the subject. In comparison, the Kotaku AfD showed a significant amount of coverage in the press (meaning Kotaku itself, as opposed to brief snippets saying "Kotaku gave so-and-so 6/10" and saying nothing beyond that; Kotaku was
852:. But it's still a reliable source that shows notability in some way (though not a strong case for it). However, that's one source, the others are all either routine coverage, are about the lawsuit and can easily be covered elsewhere, or is content owned by the website's parent company and not an independent source. A single source isn't enough to meet the requirements of
1047:
The sidelining and characterization of my list of sources as primary sources is wildly inaccurate and your prior reply was terribly condescending. It doesn't help to forward us to your talk page where you can claim there were no arguments from policy and belittle a non-admin closure without even an
914:
independent coverage. Two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another, that's one of the most fundamental aspects of independent coverage; the two sites have a vested interest and do not write from a disinterested perspective. I didn't even have to know they were
516:
Yeah, maybe so. I guess I'll strike my vote, as you've put enough doubt in my mind that I don't feel comfortable voting to keep. I still think that I might be able to find better sources, but I'm unwilling to put in more than hour of scouring Google to prove notability for a website I've never
1028:
See my talk page for the explanation. A single editor using primary sources as justification to keep an article and other editors simply saying "per this other editor" with no elaboration is not a clear keep rationale, especially as a NAC from an editor from the same WikiProject as all of those
808:
article is about a person who came to work for Future over two sites, one of which was GamesRadar. The article contains no significant or even trivial coverage of GamesRadar in any way. The vg247 pieces are about the parent company and part of its network, of which this site is only a part of.
1069:
that is actively associated with the WikiProject members that argued to keep the article based on primary sourcing. That you don't see how two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another is neither inaccurate nor condescending. Instead of accusing people of
335:), whereas this article's subject is lacking that from what I can tell. All I was able to find were a bunch of social media sites for GamesRadar and forum posts discussing the site in detail, that's about it and that isn't sufficient to warrant an article on Knowledge (XXG). -
870:
I can respond blow for blow, if you'd like, but it remains that all prongs of the GNG (sigcov in multiple, independent secondary sources) are still covered even in that draconian interpretation. Every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at
982:
I'm not !voting either way, but rather than a redlink or the content being stuck in Future's article, starting a list of Future
Publishing websites/magazines and redirecting this to it would be a better IMO, if the discussion heads that way.
1064:
Given that you described my rationale as "draconian" and the tone of your own reply, complaining about my response to that as condescending is a little odd. NACs are done in very specific circumstances, this is not one of them, especially
915:
owned by the same company to see that, when I read the Edge source I thought it was a press release because of the overly promotional way it was written. Saying that "every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at
647:: A quick search shows quite a few sites mentioning it and/or using it as a source, FWIW. There's also a lot of Russian sites mentioning it, but I can't vouch one way or the other for those since I don't know Russian.
228:
501:
as opposed to the company. A company only noted in connection with a lawsuit doesn't warrant a standalone article any more than a person only notable for a single lawsuit should have their own article. -
621:
I don't think it is since the only thing reliable sources note about the website is the lawsuit, and the article is completely lacking in any mention of that, so there's nothing worth merging aside from
493:, the biz, and Shacknews, and Wired articles are all about a lawsuit, not the company/website, suggesting that the content those sources reflect should be mentioned at a more appropriate article such as
919:" is critically missing the point; I didn't say Edge and PCGamer were not reliable, I said they were not independent. The other show insignificant coverage. Them being reliable is irrelevant. -
1074:
they are independent sources, yet you did not do so. Instead of addressing the content, you choose to comment on me personally, when as you said, there is really no need. -
181:
399:
549:
222:
467:, as they were blatant PR, but there does seem to be rather strong coverage on that site. With more effort, I think I might be able to find non-PR articles there.
537:
820:
are about the lawsuit which would benefit an article about the lawsuit or COPPA, but not this website. So regarding sources which would contribute towards
299:
494:
307:
764:
188:
970:
405:
353:
264:
298:- searches on Books and Scholar show that GamesRadar is used commonly as a source itself in VG-related media (and is indeed considered a
754:
720:
117:
489:, the second one from Bath Chronicle is puffed-up coverage from the parent company's local newspaper and is about the parent company
375:
17:
1048:
attempt at preemptive discussion before reverting. There is really no need to so recklessly alienate people with whom you disagree.
662:
805:
715:
567:
988:
154:
149:
53:
158:
243:
1179:
1004:, whom requested that this be closed by an administrator. If an uninvolved admin could close this that would be great.
210:
40:
886:
independent coverage of another news outlet. There are more than enough sources to write an article about this topic.
749:
141:
906:
and have them explain to you why Edge and PCGamer are not independent coverage and thus fail to show notability per
597:
At the very, very least, this is a candidate for merge into its parent company and not worth the outright deletion (
522:
472:
555:
543:
984:
409:
357:
268:
810:
732:
490:
845:
450:
796:
With 13 sources, that looks like a good bit of significant coverage until you actually analyze the sources.
204:
486:
443:
113:
841:
814:
742:
705:
1175:
656:
518:
468:
36:
200:
1154:
1125:
1103:
1083:
1059:
1038:
1019:
992:
974:
953:
928:
897:
865:
825:
791:
700:
667:
635:
612:
589:
526:
511:
476:
413:
389:
361:
352:
as nominator. Indeed, the website is famous and reputabe but notability has nothing to do with fame.--
344:
319:
290:
272:
122:
71:
1014:
797:
755:
http://www.vg247.com/2008/08/14/future-claims-73-million-unique-users-on-games-sites-posts-abc-rises/
721:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/01/19/never-alt-tab-again-with-the-free-gamesradar-cheats-and-guides-app/
695:
66:
833:
236:
1109:
1066:
725:
598:
303:
250:
78:
966:
916:
872:
676:
1150:
1099:
824:, we have sources for the lawsuit (which would suggest notability for COPPA if anything), and
585:
464:
453:
315:
286:
105:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1174:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1131:
1091:
716:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-15-new-publisher-for-futures-cvg-and-gamesradar
260:
103:
is not a guideline or policy and is meant more for content additions/removals from articles.
82:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
949:
652:
1113:
907:
903:
853:
849:
837:
821:
777:
760:
498:
328:
100:
96:
1121:
1079:
1034:
1005:
924:
861:
631:
507:
340:
145:
57:
710:
561:
216:
438:
426:
It gets a bit of coverage. Discarding obvious press releases, I found the following:
962:
1146:
1095:
750:
http://www.vg247.com/2009/02/12/future-claims-10-million-game-site-users-per-month/
581:
311:
282:
175:
427:
945:
457:
434:
430:
817:
801:
800:
is not an independent source, it's owned by GamesRadar's parent company. So is
737:
1117:
1075:
1030:
1001:
920:
857:
627:
503:
336:
137:
129:
733:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/revealed-the-biggest-uk-games-websites/0129973
1051:
889:
783:
604:
460:
446:
381:
1070:"alienating others" for pointing that out, you could have easily explained
844:
I'm not claiming that it being defunct means it's not a useful source, but
99:
if you disagree with the closing editor's analysis of the consensus. Also,
87:"Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator."
836:, especially given the intended audience which is not the general public
327:- Article's subject has no established notability, which is required per
649:
Note:I'll be in and out, so I might not be able to respond to a comment.
1094:, but since few people know this, it really isn't inforced. Just FYI.
743:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2007/12/07/texas_sues_gamesradar/1
706:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/04/investigation_gamesradars_laun.php
1090:
It is technically against policy for a non-administrator to revert a
1000:
I originally closed the AfD as 'keep', but it was soon reverted by
701:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/gamesradar-names-new-uk-editor/05741
696:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-debuts-26-mln-visitors/
1168:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
726:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-releases-iphone-app/
776:
With this significant coverage, I say the topic meets the
626:
the first half of the lede, but that's really about it. -
832:
industry goings on to the point that their coverage is
574:
171:
167:
163:
681:-site:gamesradar.com -site:en.wikipedia.com gamesradar
235:
711:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-opens-api/
263:
and it relies almost entirely on primary sources.--
249:
1145:(Emphasis mine.) And, it wasn't my close anyways.
463:. I had to pass over a large number of hits form
1029:editors. Leave it to an administrator, please. -
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1182:). No further edits should be made to this page.
538:list of video game-related deletion discussions
499:otherwise the article would be about a lawsuit
302:in Knowledge (XXG) itself), and as such meets
400:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
738:http://www.wired.com/2007/12/texas-attorney/
536:Note: This debate has been included in the
398:Note: This debate has been included in the
308:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kotaku
397:
566:
495:Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
1114:you are welcome to disagree and discuss
687:as a publishing entity in great detail:
485:The first one you linked from Highbeam
1135:
840:. Take those away and we're left with
944:Per czar's sources and reasoning. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1136:Decisions are subject to review and
828:, an industry paper that reports on
961:per czar and Ferret's reasonings.
683:" shows many sources that discuss
572:
281:- I completed the nom for the IP.
24:
838:but other members of the industry
378:—no need for a separate bullet.
1015:
560:
376:AfD nomination implies deletion
67:
659:
1:
554:
548:
487:is a copy of a press release
850:gives it a limited audience
846:nobody was reading the blog
542:
402:. 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1199:
1155:18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1126:09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1112:for the reasons explained
1104:04:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1084:09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1060:01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1039:01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1020:01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
993:16:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
975:03:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
123:02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
77:I restored this close per
72:00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
954:17:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
929:20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
902:You are welcome to go to
898:14:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
866:06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
792:05:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
668:23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
636:19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
613:03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
590:00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
527:00:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
512:23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
477:22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
414:08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
390:03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
362:08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
345:07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
320:07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
291:07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
273:06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1171:Please do not modify it.
1067:when done from an editor
675:. Okay, I bit. A simple
259:This article is about a
32:Please do not modify it.
1138:may be reopened by any
761:self-published sources
813:is barely a mention.
333:significantly covered
95:reopen this or go to
985:MarvellousMeatpuppet
310:for a similar case.
48:The result was
1110:was inappropriate
875:, which includes
842:an editorial blog
806:gamesindustry.biz
650:
592:
465:Gamesindustry.biz
454:Gamesindustry.biz
403:
392:
54:non-admin closure
1190:
1173:
1058:
1056:
1017:
1012:
896:
894:
885:
790:
788:
682:
666:
661:
648:
611:
609:
579:
578:
577:
570:
564:
558:
552:
546:
535:
519:NinjaRobotPirate
469:NinjaRobotPirate
388:
386:
370:
254:
253:
239:
191:
179:
161:
121:
110:
69:
64:
34:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1180:deletion review
1169:
1052:
1049:
1006:
890:
887:
883:
784:
781:
773:
680:
665:
651:
605:
602:
573:
541:
406:180.172.239.231
382:
379:
354:180.172.239.231
300:reliable source
265:180.172.239.231
196:
187:
152:
136:
133:
106:
104:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1196:
1194:
1185:
1184:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1042:
1041:
1023:
1022:
995:
977:
956:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
772:
771:
770:
769:
766:
757:
752:
747:
746:
745:
735:
730:
729:
728:
718:
713:
708:
703:
698:
690:
689:
688:
670:
655:
641:
640:
639:
638:
616:
615:
594:
593:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
491:not GamesRadar
480:
479:
439:Bath Chronicle
417:
416:
395:
394:
393:
365:
364:
347:
322:
293:
257:
256:
193:
132:
127:
126:
125:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1195:
1183:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1166:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1140:administrator
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1055:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
990:
986:
981:
978:
976:
972:
971:contributions
968:
964:
963:Lord Sjones23
960:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
940:
939:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
895:
893:
882:
878:
874:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
816:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
789:
787:
779:
775:
774:
767:
765:
762:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
736:
734:
731:
727:
724:
723:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
694:
693:
692:
691:
686:
678:
674:
671:
669:
664:
658:
654:
646:
643:
642:
637:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
608:
600:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
576:
569:
563:
557:
551:
545:
539:
534:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
451:
448:
444:
441:
440:
435:
432:
428:
425:
423:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
401:
396:
391:
387:
385:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
292:
289:
288:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:Find sources:
194:
190:
186:
183:
177:
173:
169:
165:
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
131:
128:
124:
119:
115:
111:
109:
102:
98:
94:
93:
92:administrator
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
74:
73:
70:
65:
63:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1170:
1167:
1149:
1139:
1137:
1098:
1071:
1053:
1008:
1007:
997:
979:
958:
941:
911:
891:
880:
877:GameSetWatch
876:
829:
785:
684:
679:search for "
672:
644:
623:
606:
437:
421:
420:
383:
371:
349:
332:
324:
314:
295:
285:
278:
258:
246:
240:
232:
225:
219:
213:
207:
197:
184:
108:MrScorch6200
107:
91:
90:
86:
60:
59:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1108:Your close
1016:(´ ･ ω ･ `)
798:Edge Online
653:Supernerd11
431:NewsRx, LLC
223:free images
68:(´ ･ ω ･ `)
1009:Satellizer
1002:User:Aoidh
685:GamesRadar
261:NN website
138:GamesRadar
130:GamesRadar
61:Satellizer
1176:talk page
768:and so on
599:WP:BEFORE
582:• Gene93k
517:visited.
461:Wired.com
447:Shacknews
436:from the
304:WP:NMEDIA
79:WP:BADNAC
37:talk page
1178:or in a
917:WP:VG/RS
912:requires
910:, which
873:WP:VG/RS
848:, which
677:WP:VG/RS
657:Firemind
182:View log
39:or in a
1132:WP:NACD
998:Comment
980:Comment
834:routine
802:PCGamer
759:useful
663:Pokedex
645:Comment
279:Comment
229:WP refs
217:scholar
155:protect
150:history
89:Let an
83:WP:NACD
946:ferret
908:WP:GNG
904:WP:RSN
854:WP:GNG
822:WP:GNG
804:. The
350:Delete
329:WP:GNG
325:Delete
306:. See
201:Google
159:delete
101:WP:BRD
97:WP:DRV
1130:From
1118:Aoidh
1076:Aoidh
1050:czar
1031:Aoidh
921:Aoidh
888:czar
858:Aoidh
826:MCVUK
815:These
782:czar
628:Aoidh
624:maybe
603:czar
504:Aoidh
497:, as
459:from
452:from
445:from
429:from
380:czar
337:Aoidh
244:JSTOR
205:books
189:Stats
176:views
168:watch
164:links
16:<
1147:Ansh
1122:talk
1116:. -
1096:Ansh
1080:talk
1035:talk
989:talk
967:talk
959:Keep
950:talk
942:Keep
925:talk
881:Edge
879:and
862:talk
856:. -
811:This
673:Keep
632:talk
586:talk
575:Talk
523:talk
508:talk
473:talk
422:Keep
410:talk
372:Note
358:talk
341:talk
312:Ansh
296:Keep
283:Ansh
269:talk
237:FENS
211:news
172:logs
146:talk
142:edit
118:ctrb
114:talk
81:and
50:keep
1151:666
1100:666
1092:NAC
1072:how
830:all
818:two
778:GNG
660:^_^
540:. (
316:666
287:666
251:TWL
180:– (
52:. (
1134::
1124:)
1082:)
1037:)
991:)
973:)
969:-
952:)
927:)
884:'s
864:)
780:.
763::
634:)
601:)
588:)
580:)
568:RS
525:)
510:)
475:)
456:,
449:,
442:,
433:,
412:)
404:--
374::
360:)
343:)
271:)
231:)
174:|
170:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
116:|
85:,
56:)
1142:.
1120:(
1078:(
1054:♔
1033:(
987:(
965:(
948:(
923:(
892:♔
860:(
786:♔
630:(
607:♔
584:(
571:·
565:·
562:S
559:·
556:B
553:·
550:N
547:·
544:G
521:(
506:(
471:(
424:.
408:(
384:♔
356:(
339:(
267:(
255:)
247:·
241:·
233:·
226:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
203:(
195:(
192:)
185:·
178:)
140:(
120:)
112:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.