596:
April and May, when citing sources was not viewed as critical as it is now. Maybe that's just my perspective. Some of the information might be verified by just visiting the website. I don't think that there needs to be an independent source to verify that "the sky is blue" when anyone can look at the sky to know its blue.
595:
The article's history only shows that "A Man in Black" has nominated the article for deletion. Numerous anon editors wrote the article. I think that Black should remove all the unsourced information that he/she added to the article, then renominate the article. Much of the article was written in
82:
in a previous AFD, basically on the force of my argument. I've since changed my mind, since none of the reasons I felt the article should be kept can actually be verified, and because these things are essentially unverifiable, given the lack of independent commentary on this forum. -
551:
David Jaffe is an example. If you'll notice, the thing you're claiming cannot be cited is not a minor fact; the fact that David Jaffe posts on GAF is smaller than the fact that many developers and insiders in the industry (such as editors of notable websites such as 1UP). -
239:
Can you offer a reliable source that shows this, though? I'd personally like to keep this article, but I can't see how it could possibly be sourced. Most of the claims in this article come from me talking personally with some of the long-time members. -
521:
It's not a matter of just proof. If the fact that Jaffe comments on this forum is such a minor fact that no outside source has ever commented upon it, then
Knowledge doesn't need to comment on it. We don't have
320:
If the article is unverifiable, that is an argument against keeping it. I'm asserting that no claim about this article can be sourced ever, because there's no outside discussion of this site. -
127:
and an article that's a lot better than most of forum vanity articles usually posted to AfD, I don't really see anyone outside their community looking up this article in
Knowledge. --
79:
605:
All of the information in the article (other than "This forum exists"), whether added by me or anons, is unsourced, and indeed unverifiable. -
472:
And what if it were a post from nintendo.com's forums from an NOA user? Does that cease to be usable because he or she posted it on a forum? -
644:. At the point where the only outside reference is the website itself, it looks like an advertisement. No notability claimed or implied.
620:
541:
499:
462:
421:
378:
335:
298:
255:
174:
98:
431:
How is that not a citable source? Since when has a (proven) NeoGAF user being David Jaffe not been proof enough that he is David Jaffe? -
345:
If it is. This, however, is hardly the case. David Jaffe? Merely find the user name he goes under and get the evidence from him. -
139:
17:
444:
Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
556:
513:
476:
435:
392:
349:
312:
212:
681:
36:
680:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
616:
537:
495:
458:
417:
374:
331:
294:
251:
170:
94:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
223:
There is alot of cruft that needs to be removed but NeoGAF is a high profile site that should have an article
553:
510:
473:
432:
389:
346:
309:
209:
270:
Very notable site with high-profile industry members. Article quality is not equivalent to notability. --
523:
664:
636:
606:
527:
485:
448:
407:
364:
321:
284:
241:
196:
160:
113:
84:
62:
150:
666:
648:
625:
600:
559:
546:
516:
504:
479:
467:
438:
426:
395:
383:
352:
340:
315:
303:
274:
260:
234:
215:
200:
179:
154:
116:
103:
66:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
308:
A lack of sources is an argument against being featured, not against the article existing. -
283:. Can you offer a reliable source that can show that it has high-profile industry members? -
661:
597:
229:
191:
54:
645:
635:
per nom. Article history shows a lot of editorial activity, the least of which was
159:
I would hope that it would be a bit better, since I was the one who rewrote it. ;D -
129:
401:
358:
657:
271:
224:
509:
If the GAF user can prove that he is David Jaffe, I see no problem. -
388:
Ask him in email to present evidence on the forums of his identity. -
72:
674:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
357:
Asking him in e-mail isn't a citable source, though. Is there a
656:
per nom's "time has wisened me" re-nomination. It simply fails
125:
406:(do go read that) to back any claim in this article? -
524:
The McDonalds down the street from David Jaffe's house
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
78:Wholly unreferenced; basic forum vanity. This was
684:). No further edits should be made to this page.
484:We're not talking about the NOA forums here. -
400:That's not a citable source either. Is there a
8:
124:Despite having 11,932 members according to
208:. NeoGAF is a forum plus a review site. -
363:to back any claim in this article? -
7:
281:none of those claims can be sourced
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
44:The result of the debate was
80:barely kept as no consensus
701:
67:01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
677:Please do not modify it.
667:20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
649:13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
626:01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
601:12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
560:00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
547:08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
517:08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
505:05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
480:04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
468:01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
439:01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
427:23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
403:reliable. citable source
396:17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
384:04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
360:reliable. citable source
353:06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
341:04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
316:04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
304:22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
275:05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
261:22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
235:01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
216:22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
201:19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
180:17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
155:17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
117:15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
104:13:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
554:A Link to the Past
511:A Link to the Past
474:A Link to the Past
433:A Link to the Past
390:A Link to the Past
347:A Link to the Past
310:A Link to the Past
210:A Link to the Past
624:
545:
503:
466:
425:
382:
339:
302:
259:
199:
178:
102:
692:
679:
642:
614:
612:
535:
533:
493:
491:
456:
454:
415:
413:
372:
370:
329:
327:
292:
290:
249:
247:
232:
227:
195:
168:
166:
153:
148:
145:
142:
134:
92:
90:
60:
34:
700:
699:
695:
694:
693:
691:
690:
689:
688:
682:deletion review
675:
638:
608:
529:
487:
450:
409:
366:
323:
286:
243:
230:
225:
162:
146:
143:
140:
132:
128:
86:
76:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
698:
696:
687:
686:
670:
669:
651:
630:
629:
628:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
447:That's why. -
446:
265:
264:
263:
218:
203:
184:
183:
182:
119:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
697:
685:
683:
678:
672:
671:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
652:
650:
647:
643:
641:
634:
631:
627:
622:
618:
613:
611:
604:
603:
602:
599:
594:
591:
561:
558:
555:
550:
549:
548:
543:
539:
534:
532:
525:
520:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
501:
497:
492:
490:
483:
482:
481:
478:
475:
471:
470:
469:
464:
460:
455:
453:
445:
442:
441:
440:
437:
434:
430:
429:
428:
423:
419:
414:
412:
405:
404:
399:
398:
397:
394:
391:
387:
386:
385:
380:
376:
371:
369:
362:
361:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
337:
333:
328:
326:
319:
318:
317:
314:
311:
307:
306:
305:
300:
296:
291:
289:
282:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
266:
262:
257:
253:
248:
246:
238:
237:
236:
233:
231:-(need help?)
228:
222:
219:
217:
214:
211:
207:
204:
202:
198:
194:
193:
188:
185:
181:
176:
172:
167:
165:
158:
157:
156:
152:
151:
149:
137:
136:
135:
126:
123:
120:
118:
115:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
100:
96:
91:
89:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
676:
673:
653:
639:
632:
609:
592:
530:
488:
451:
443:
410:
402:
367:
359:
324:
287:
280:
279:Problem is,
268:Strong keep.
267:
244:
220:
205:
190:
186:
163:
138:
131:
130:
121:
109:
87:
77:
53:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
197:talk. o.o;;
189:per nom. --
112:per nom. ~
662:AbsolutDan
598:Royalbroil
637:A Man In
607:A Man In
528:A Man In
486:A Man In
449:A Man In
408:A Man In
365:A Man In
322:A Man In
285:A Man In
242:A Man In
192:Coredesat
161:A Man In
133:Netsnipe
85:A Man In
646:Tychocat
621:past ops
617:conspire
542:past ops
538:conspire
500:past ops
496:conspire
463:past ops
459:conspire
422:past ops
418:conspire
379:past ops
375:conspire
336:past ops
332:conspire
299:past ops
295:conspire
256:past ops
252:conspire
175:past ops
171:conspire
114:Vic Vipr
99:past ops
95:conspire
55:Deckill
654:Delete
633:Delete
557:(talk)
514:(talk)
477:(talk)
436:(talk)
393:(talk)
350:(talk)
313:(talk)
213:(talk)
187:Delete
122:Delete
110:Delete
73:NeoGAF
640:Bl♟ck
610:Bl♟ck
531:Bl♟ck
489:Bl♟ck
452:Bl♟ck
411:Bl♟ck
368:Bl♟ck
325:Bl♟ck
288:Bl♟ck
272:TJive
245:Bl♟ck
226:Jedi6
164:Bl♟ck
88:Bl♟ck
48:, so
16:<
658:WP:V
593:Keep
526:. -
221:Keep
206:Keep
52:. —
50:keep
660:--
619:|
540:|
498:|
461:|
420:|
377:|
334:|
297:|
254:|
173:|
97:|
623:)
615:(
544:)
536:(
502:)
494:(
465:)
457:(
424:)
416:(
381:)
373:(
338:)
330:(
301:)
293:(
258:)
250:(
177:)
169:(
147:U
144:V
141:C
101:)
93:(
63:r
59:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.