Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dueling Network (3rd nomination)

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. Not

salting as suggested because the article has only been recreated once (2nd AfD ended with no consensus). RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Dueling Network

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be the sole reliable source about the topic. I checked the previous AfDs and they also did not present any reliable sourcing. The article appears to fail

WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG due to a lack of multiple reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly I wasn't able to find much on this in my searches beyond what the nominator already mentioned. Doesn't meet
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep clearly notable with many reliable sources. बिनोद थारू. Another reliable source: https://ygorganization.com/cd-order-filed-against-dueling-network/ and another https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ and another https://gamerant.com/yu-gi-oh-trading-card-game-ways-changed-since-1999/#rise-and-fall-of-dueling-network and another https://www.neoseeker.com/news/27662-konami-summons-the-dark-magician-for-three-new-yu-gi-oh-games-in-2016/ (passing mention) and another https://twinfinite.net/features/best-yugioh-game-in-years/ (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions don't count towards notability. YGOrganization looks like a blog, with pseudonymous contributors, a request for Patreon donations, and the site running on Wordpress. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, anything from Game Rant doesn't count towards notability, and Twinfinite is an unreliable source. QuietCicada - Talk 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to count how many that leaves in total which is 2 or more with significant coverage. The original one and this one https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/. And probably more if dig deeper (more than 1 minute I spent). बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender even says it's a blog in the URL, so it's not a reliable source per
WP:BLOG. That leaves, as I said, a single reliable source. Even if we assume it is reliable, the significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail isn't there, since these are about a single event that affected the site rather than the site itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. You are spreading misinformation about policy.
WP:NEWSBLOGS
, which reads:

"Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." बिनोद थारू (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender is not a "news organization", it is a company that makes antivirus tools. Thus, that does not apply, because the writers are not employed in a professional context by a news organization.

Accusing people of spreading misinformation is an
WP:ADHOMINEM, please think twice before using such highly charged language or it will just boomerang back to you if the evidence of ill intent is not found by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is file under the "INDUSTRY NEWS", making https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ a news article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Joe down the street can also start up a blog where they post news. That doesn't make Joe a reliable news source.

Either way, the point is moot, because BitDefender is just quoting Vice for the entire article and admit as much. There is no new take here and it shouldn't count as a separate source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like others said, first two sources are blogs/unreliable, GameRant and Twininfinite aren't a significant coverage of the subject, NeoSeeker is literally just a name drop...
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can only see the one RS linked in the nom statement – I would consider the Bitdefender article/blog/whatever linked above the same source, as Bitdefender's piece seems to be simply rereporting of the Motherboard article. Tollens (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Since this is the third time that the article has been created in good faith by different people over the course of eleven years and it's still not meeting notability, we should salt it to prevent this from happening again. QuietCicada - Talk 12:24, 4 November 2023 (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.