262:
are no inaccuracies within this. Do you want traffic details specifically for Bowman 2 (one game which boasts millions of plays?)? Something more concrete? Could you give us the very definition of what you want so that we may give you just that? I'm not sure what you consider "original research". You seem to bend that to "something I do not approve of" and I find it very strange.
579:
in the entire six issues in the "pack." That mention, by the way, is in conjunction with reviews about games hosted on the site. That is effectively what the majority of the sources show, which is "the name was mentioned, once"), or are cruft links to different parts of the website. Those are by
464:
We have taken action based on what you said. We've added almost 30 references including books, websites, blogs, journals, news articles, website statistics, reviews, videos and even research papers. We've put a lot of work into it and by now I'd say it's pretty reliable and professional. There are
392:
An article was posted just three days ago containing information relating to the site. Give us some time and more will be found. Unfortunately others have been removed, including a detailed list of website analytics and statistics from
Mochiland, however I'll do my best to collect some more. Since
261:
Well, wouldn't sources on this count as reliable? They're from trusted, truthful websites (Alexa in particular only shows stats, LinkedIn is meant to give information on
Valzano), and it's not like they're lies. As someone who's been active on the site for 5 years, maybe more, I can say that there
306:
sources which cannot be used to establish notability or anything at all really except establishing uncontroversial facts. This is because they are not independent of the subject and exist to promote it, this is contrary to
Knowledge (XXG)'s
366:. I browsed around some and could find nothing reliable that discusses this outfit. Note: of course LinkedIn is not reliable--at best it's a directory. The Alexa score isn't particularly high. The definition of what's reliable is in
279:
Well sorry mate but anyone who isn't friends with him isn't going to have enough information to write a
Knowledge (XXG) article that the mods here consider "valid". In fact, I'm not sure Chuck Norris doing a Jedi mind trick is.
174:
402:
You misunderstand that I don't realise what you want from me. I'm well aware that secondary sources are much preferred to primary ones, but frankly they're just the first I have. Just because they're not
371:
393:
this discussion was started (might I add just hours after I wrote the article, like seriously) at least 15 more references have been added, so it's obvious that I (and others) are trying.
445:
The article has only been started - give the writer(s) more time to find sources of information. The current alexa rating is not relevant, as most site activity was in the past.--
567:- per Winner42, Conifer, Drmies, and comments made by Flobberz. "You have to be friends with the owner in order to write the article" is a pretty large red flag, because that's
127:
329:
495:
168:
483:
571:. The sources do not meet RS, as all the mentions are trivial; for example, a "scholarly article" listed the website as a "software cited" for Flash, and
287:
the owner really not count? What do you want from me when that's all there is? When those are what he gave me as references when I asked for them? --
227:
I am a moderator on the website and am good friends with the owner. A lot of the information came directly from him. --05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
134:
420:
If I'm blunt, there's no reason to really care, to be honest. We have no reason to lie - in fact we have just about every reason to tell the
370:, and what the writer needs to realize is that an encyclopedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. (This stuff is handled in
550:. This is enough for deletion on its own, but the very likely UDPE makes me confident that this article doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG).
100:
95:
17:
104:
575:, supposedly published by Indiana University, is in Italian(?), the URL is from Google.hk(?), and after all that mentions the URL
513:
87:
189:
156:
350:
625:
40:
501:
489:
546:
Subject does not have significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources, so it does not come anywhere near passing
150:
344:
606:
589:
559:
535:
474:
454:
433:
383:
355:
320:
296:
271:
256:
222:
146:
69:
267:
91:
621:
36:
235:, like being friends with the owner. Second, we can't included information on Knowledge (XXG) based on
196:
263:
303:
83:
75:
602:
556:
317:
182:
470:
429:
292:
585:
531:
248:
214:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
620:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
308:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
507:
379:
338:
162:
547:
465:
many worse on
Knowledge (XXG) so if this gets deleted, so should many others. Thank you. --
232:
53:
597:
Purely promotional article about non-notable game developer, no evidence of notability. --
450:
367:
236:
598:
551:
312:
466:
425:
288:
64:
58:
581:
527:
283:
Does a LinkedIn profile clearly of the owner aswell as reliable references written
240:
206:
121:
375:
333:
239:, which includes personal knowledge that isn't published in a reliable source.
446:
231:
Hello. First, we discourage writing about subjects where you have a
372:
Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
205:
No independent sources except for a blog interview, not notable.
614:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
520:
117:
113:
109:
411:
amongst secondary ones, which I am attempting to find.
181:
580:definition trivial. No RS = no GNG = no article.
195:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
628:). No further edits should be made to this page.
424:. There's no need for it to be so bureaucratic.
374:, and of course in most freshman comp classes.)
484:list of video game-related deletion discussions
330:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
482:Note: This debate has been included in the
328:Note: This debate has been included in the
327:
512:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
569:almost exactly the opposite of GNG
518:
24:
407:doesn't mean they can't still be
506:
302:LinkedIn profiles are textbook
1:
500:
494:
607:04:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
590:23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
560:22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
536:23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
488:
475:03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
455:02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
434:08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
384:02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
356:02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
321:22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
297:05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
272:05:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
257:05:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
223:05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
70:07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
645:
617:Please do not modify it.
52:per reasoning below and
32:Please do not modify it.
233:conflict of interest
538:
358:
354:
237:original research
68:
636:
619:
525:
524:
523:
516:
510:
504:
498:
492:
481:
336:
253:
245:
219:
211:
200:
199:
185:
137:
125:
107:
62:
48:The result was
34:
644:
643:
639:
638:
637:
635:
634:
633:
632:
626:deletion review
615:
519:
487:
249:
241:
215:
207:
142:
133:
98:
82:
79:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
642:
640:
631:
630:
610:
609:
592:
562:
540:
539:
478:
477:
458:
457:
439:
438:
437:
436:
415:
414:
413:
412:
397:
396:
395:
394:
387:
386:
360:
359:
324:
323:
277:
276:
275:
274:
203:
202:
139:
84:FreeWorldGroup
78:
76:FreeWorldGroup
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
641:
629:
627:
623:
618:
612:
611:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
561:
558:
555:
554:
549:
545:
542:
541:
537:
533:
529:
522:
515:
509:
503:
497:
491:
485:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
463:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
410:
406:
401:
400:
399:
398:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
357:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
335:
331:
326:
325:
322:
319:
316:
315:
310:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
273:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
254:
252:
246:
244:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
225:
224:
220:
218:
212:
210:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
66:
61:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
616:
613:
594:
577:exactly once
576:
572:
568:
564:
552:
543:
461:
442:
421:
408:
404:
363:
347:
341:
313:
284:
282:
278:
250:
242:
226:
216:
208:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
130:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
557:Talk to me!
318:Talk to me!
169:free images
573:L'espresso
304:WP:SELFPUB
264:Foopzheart
54:WP:CSD#G11
622:talk page
599:Guy Macon
553:Winner 42
528:• Gene93k
405:preferred
314:Winner 42
37:talk page
624:or in a
467:Flobberz
426:Flobberz
311:policy.
289:Flobberz
128:View log
39:or in a
595:Delete.
582:MSJapan
309:WP:NPOV
243:Conifer
209:Conifer
175:WP refs
163:scholar
101:protect
96:history
565:Delete
548:WP:GNG
544:Delete
376:Drmies
364:Delete
334:JJMC89
147:Google
105:delete
50:Delete
447:JSwho
422:truth
368:WP:RS
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
122:views
114:watch
110:links
65:Help!
16:<
603:talk
586:talk
532:talk
521:Talk
471:talk
462:Keep
451:talk
443:Keep
430:talk
409:used
380:talk
332:. —
293:talk
268:talk
251:talk
217:talk
183:FENS
157:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
486:. (
197:TWL
126:– (
59:Guy
605:)
588:)
534:)
526:)
514:RS
473:)
453:)
432:)
382:)
295:)
285:by
270:)
255:)
221:)
177:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
56:.
601:(
584:(
530:(
517:·
511:·
508:S
505:·
502:B
499:·
496:N
493:·
490:G
469:(
449:(
428:(
378:(
353:)
351:C
348:·
345:E
342:·
339:T
337:(
291:(
266:(
247:(
213:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
131:·
124:)
86:(
67:)
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.