Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildCafe

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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 07:26Z

GuildCafe[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. All references except one seem to be a rehash of the press release, which the guidelines address Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site are not considered notable coverage. Doesn't appear to have won any notable awards. Site is brand new, still in beta. If and when it comes out and gains notability I wouldn't oppose its having an article. In addition, not in top 100,000 websites [1] hasn't bee on the radar with a measurable page reach until 3 weeks ago [2].Crossmr 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have made some improvements to the article, removing some references that appeared to be links to duplicate content. I also added an additional assertion of notability regarding the hosting of the Bartle test. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Although it appears that this website/company is quite notable from all the press mentions, if you dig down a bit deeper all you'll find is the initial press release of the launch. Jayden54 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page was originally created by Jacoplane as part of the WikiProject Computer and video games articles, after press coverage of the company's original launch in September under the name SparkForge. The article refers to press coverage of at least three separate announcements. Nor is the company simply a "website," it is a company developing technology of interest in the computer game industry. Tarinth 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comment--the original creator of the page, Jacoplane, is listed as on vacation according to his user page, but it would be helpful to get his reaction as well. Tarinth 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage listed doesn't seem to be anything other than rehashing of the press release. Do you have some other coverage that isn't listed there? A quick google search didn't reveal anything but more of the same. How would Jacoplane's input be anymore helpful than any other editor? If editors can't find evidence of notability that is hidden so well that we need someone specific to show it to us, it isn't likely a notable site.--Crossmr 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals in excess of 40,000+ hits, and as with anything that has received significant interest within an industry, there will be a lot of duplicates. However, looking through some of the higher ranked items one finds a number of articles with editorial commentary, as well as mentions in prominent industry sites (beyond computer gaming) such as Mashable and O'Reilly Radar. One also has to consider the 2,000 Ghits related to the company's former name, SparkForge (the original name under which the article was created under in September), which turns up some other media coverage of the company within the gaming industry. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appear to be 5 seperate industry media links, that is reasonable industry interest in my books. It may be new, that dosn't stop it from being noteworthy. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which are all just rehashes of the press release. There isn't really multiple, non-trivial coverage independent of the source.--Crossmr 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, there *are* several different items, and this should be clearer with the removal of a couple of the duplicates.

Delete, no evidence of notability in terms of WP:WEB. And yes, most of the articles are rehashes of the press release. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wholeheartedly disagree with the petition to delete. To delete Guild Cafe, you would then have to delete all other online communities listed in Wikipedia, including: MySpace, Classmates and YouTube. The website is a tool that helps people around the world share similar ideas. Unless there are existing regulations on how popular, large or well known an online community is, I do not see how you can delete this article. Does an Wikipedia entry now have to be an award winner to be listed in Wikipedia? I do not see that requirement in any wikipedia guideline that says a website has to be in the top 100,000 rankings. If you can specify where these guidelines are, then yes I would agree with deletion. There are nearly 1,000 people using Guild Cafe and is an open AND FREE public service. On the other hand, however, there is an entry for a video game that is currently PRIVATE and in CLOSED beta, will have a purchase price and a monthly charge that you have not petitioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_Saga_of_Heroes That product has not yet been released. So according to your newly devised standards, any wikipedia entry that relates to an online service must meet the following criteria:

A top 100,000 website An established product with X amount of users Must have won notable awards Must not be in Beta Must not be "brand new" - Wikipedia only allows entries of Old Items and dated information

Wikipedia "GUIDELINES" state that an entry must meet 1 of 3 requirements to be posted. A person writing a press release does not make something notable. What makes it notable is who thought the press release was worthy of re-publishing. 99% of press releases wrote are trashed by the receivers. In this case, relevancy and notability prevail as this press release was picked up, published and/or edited by major influences in the industry/field it relates to:

IGN - the leader of online gaming felt it was important and relevant Warcry - One of the top 10 MMORPG gaming sites felt it was notable Stratics.com - A leader in delivering MMORPG industry news felt it was notable TentonHammer - Another industry leading website picked it up and reported on it.

If anything the entry should be re-edited for neutrality, but definitely not deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.230.25 (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 22, 2006.

What makes it notable is who thought the press release was worthy of re-publishing. Actually no. Re-read the guideline. Reprinting of the press release doesn't make it notable, regardless of who picked it up. It doesn't satisfy a single of the criteria listed and until it does, it doesn't qualify for an article here. If you feel there are other websites which don't meet the criteria feel free to create an account and nominate them for deletion, we're here to discuss this article though.--Crossmr 06:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time researching this morning and found the following well established website that included Guild Cafe as a relevant gaming entity. http://www.gokidsnj.com/article2294.html. This url was referenced off this websites "Video Games For Kids' search http://www.gokidsnj.com/modules.php?name=new-jersey-news-for-parents&news_for_parents=50&new_jersey=7

Other non-press release mentions on the internet:http://www.mmodig.com/?p=451,http://mashable.com/2006/12/01/rupture-napster-founders-world-of-warcraft-social-network/,http://www.gamingblog.org/entry/guildcafecom-explore-your-social-network/

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.230.25 (talk • contribs) 21:00, December 23, 2006.

This is all fairly longwinded, but I think the point he may be making that *is* generally regarded as relavent in terms of both WP:WEB and WP:CORP is the extensiveness of coverage and/or linkage, i.e., 40K+ Ghits. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those links are blogs, and not meaningful in terms of measuring the notability of a site, and the other once again qualifies as a trivial mention per WP:WEB. I still don't see any multiple non-trivial coverage of the site.--Crossmr 19:52, 24 December 2006 (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.