Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotaku

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. WP:SNOW keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku[edit]

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

Fair notice: I first noticed the lack of RS and coverage about Kotaku after another editor pointed it out to me, albeit not with the intention to have it deleted. In any case, the problem here is that while this is certainly a very popular site and something that you could use as a reliable source, there really isn't a lot of coverage that is specifically about the website. Popularity doesn't translate into notability, it just makes it more likely something will gain coverage. Other than a handful of articles such as this one, there really isn't anything out there to show that Kotaku passes WP:WEB. They are on a CNET list, but it's a fairly large list and not really the type of thing that would give absolute notability. I do love the website and I've used it for sourcing in the past, but I have to say that I don't think it passes notability guidelines. If anyone can find reliable sources that talk about the website in depth, I'm willing to be swayed. With the risk of launching a potential lengthy argument from fellow fans of the site, I just don't see anything that goes into depth to show that this passes GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kotaku's Wikipedia article deleted, did Patriarchy just rear its rape head again? - Patricia Hernandez reports." --Niemti (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be civil. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought tho, I guess a redirect would avoid a red link crisis. --Niemti (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't initially think about that- a redirect would be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not convinced WP:BEFORE was followed here. Passed WP:WEB as far as I can see. Brief search turned up several sources: Referenced Kotaku [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. About Kotaku [6] [7][8] [9]. A simple notability tag or talk page discussion was all that was needed, leaping straight to AFD is not the way forward. Яehevkor ✉ 11:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping the article as a stub? It has three reliable sources noting it, one of them critically assessing its writing style. Diego (talk) 12:01, 24 January 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) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm pretty sure at least 2 of the sources it currently has are sufficient; besides, it itself counts as a WP:RS, not that that matters that much. Ansh6 6 6 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rehevkor's sources. Seems like plenty to meet the WP:GNG. Also confused why the "not a majority vote" tag was place here. Minus Niemti's nonsense comment, the responses have been policy-based. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the vote tag myself, removed for now. If it becomes an issue it can be added, as is the usual practice. Яehevkor ✉ 21:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personally, I don't like it, but it's got some press coverage. I added some more sources to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ansh666 and Sergecross73. satellizer (talk - contributions) 02:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMEDIA as being a WP:VG/RS frequently cited by others and significant in its market. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:14, 25 January 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.