Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamesRadar

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I restored this close per
  WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and is meant more for content additions/removals from articles. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

This article is about a

• Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - searches on Books and Scholar show that GamesRadar is used commonly as a source itself in VG-related media (and is indeed considered a
  WP:NMEDIA. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotaku for a similar case. Ansh666 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Article's subject has no established notability, which is required per
  WP:GNG. Many of the GBooks results appear to be copies of Wikipedia, 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 significantly covered), 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 Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nominator. Indeed, the website is famous and reputabe but notability has nothing to do with fame.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

♔ 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It gets a bit of coverage. Discarding obvious press releases, I found the following: [1] from
  Gamesindustry.biz, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The first one you linked from Highbeam is a copy of a press release, the second one from Bath Chronicle is puffed-up coverage from the parent company's local newspaper and is about the parent company

otherwise the article would be about a lawsuit 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. - Aoidh (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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 visited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• At the very, very least, this is a candidate for merge into its parent company and not worth the outright deletion (
  ♔ 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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 maybe the first half of the lede, but that's really about it. - Aoidh (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 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. Note:I'll be in and out, so I might not be able to respond to a comment. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay, I bit. A simple
  WP:VG/RS
  search for "-site:gamesradar.com -site:en.wikipedia.com gamesradar" shows many sources that discuss GamesRadar as a publishing entity in great detail:

With this significant coverage, I say the topic meets the

♔ 05:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

With 13 sources, that looks like a good bit of significant coverage until you actually analyze the sources. Edge Online is not an independent source, it's owned by GamesRadar's parent company. So is PCGamer. The gamesindustry.biz 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. This is barely a mention. These two 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

WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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

♔ 14:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You are welcome to go to

WP:VG/RS" 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. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Per czar's sources and reasoning. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per czar and Ferret's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 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. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I originally closed the AfD as 'keep', but it was soon reverted by User:Aoidh, whom requested that this be closed by an administrator. If an uninvolved admin could close this that would be great. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 editors. Leave it to an administrator, please. - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 attempt at preemptive discussion before reverting. There is really no need to so recklessly alienate people with whom you disagree. czar 

♔ 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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

when done from an editor 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 "alienating others" for pointing that out, you could have easily explained how 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. - Aoidh (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is technically against policy for a non-administrator to revert a

NAC, but since few people know this, it really isn't inforced. Just FYI. Ansh666 04:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Your close

you are welcome to disagree and discuss. - Aoidh (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:NACD: Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. (Emphasis mine.) And, it wasn't my close anyways. Ansh666 18:13, 4 August 2014 (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.