Destructoid – Deletion endorsed. The respondents felt that a huge volume of self-referential and trivial sources does not equate to reliable sources for verifiability or notability. – Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The article has gone through two AfD's, and was deleted a year ago in the second AfD. Since then, the blog's been mentioned on various notable media sources, ranging from minor references to substantial coverage:
One of the rationales for the last RfD was concerning Google hits, which is clearly not a problem anymore. While the last few references on the above list may seem minor, the sheer number of references by notable media sources indicates the notability of the subject. Also, having the site mascot appear in a video game by one of the industry's largest companies (Capcom), clearly shows that this isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill blog. T B C♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been through a small set of the links you provide from the top half of the list (since you say the later maybe minor) and all those I saw would be trivial passing mentions. You couldn't write a source article based on the them since they just say "destructiod has an article on x", or "destructiod mascot to appear in a game" etc. i.e. they tell you nothing about destructoid itself. Are there any where the subject of the article is destructiod itself. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't trivial references since they do focus on Destructoid (just certain aspects of it, like the mascot or blogging practices) and references to the site aren't just made in passing. Also, as I've said, I believe that the sheer number of references, however minor, by other notable sources justifies the notability of the website.--T B C♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I've been unlucky in what I followed then. The wired links, the first link is a blog post telling us the mascot will be used in a game. The second covers nintendo, the destructoid connection is about the photo noting "but Nintendo's press conferences still bring out the crazy fans, like this Destructoid.com writer in a robot mask.". The joystiq links are of a similar ilk, "Destructoid defines five reasons why gamers should wait" is a report on an article on destructoid. "Destructoid made some adorable graphics comparing the prototype Revmote" again a report on an article. The others I read through were all similar. These tell you nothing factual about destructoid itself other than perhaps it get's reports on it's content elsewhere. This proves existance, doesn't get beyond the "non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources" required for notability, and would be of little use in an article, unless that article is going to be a list of trivia or mentions, i.e. not an encyclopedia article. The sheer numbers are unimportant, what is important is has someone wrote about destructoid itself, not has someone wrote about something destructoid has reported on etc. Notability question aside, if someone hasn't written about destructiod itself we'd fail verifiability anyway --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the lower half of the list, and they are all of the "Destructoid website said this..." variety. Trivial mentions, that is to say, and nothing that satisfies the basic WP:Notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those are blogs in their own right, and notable for just pulling content and summarizing with "via" links, and doesn't really establish notability. The first wired source doesn't even appear to be valid. Check the author's email address. I think that is a user submitted blog. The second one is a caption for a photo. If you honestly have to stretch this far for notability, Endorse Deletion. I just looked through about a dozen links and these are the epitome of trivial coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Procedural close; no article by this title has ever existed, no deletion history in MySQL database. Please get the title right and resubmit the request. – Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reopened—after looking at the nom's deleted contribs—with the correct page title. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta' endorse. Marasmusine should have tagged the page instead of just deleting it, and it should have been deleted under A7 instead of G11, but the page in the end should have been deleted anyways. So a bit of a smack and we're done here, I think. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule stating that an admin cannot delete an untagged article if it qualifies for speedy deletion. Indeed, such a rule would drastically slow down new page patrol. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as has been mentioned before, this is deliberately not made required, because it tends to scare off some users, rightly or wrongly We should not set procedural blocks before people who wish to appeal--doing so would be, in my opinion, somewhat BITEy. (since the afd was carried out single handed, no surprise someone might have been reluctant. Yet another argument why such admin action should be prohibited, at least for matters requiring judgment like A7 and G11--they tend to arouse antagonism and lead to unnecessary deletion review). I however do NOT mean to imply that the admin was wrong in deleting the article: I certainly would have deleted it as either A7 or G11. I am therefore certainly not saying to overturn.) DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this the same article as Alchemy Systems? I asked the editor on his talk page but didn't receive a response. I can't see the deleted article but the name seems similar. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as WP:CSD#G11, blatant avdertising. The article was entirely a bio of a non-notable professional that reads like a paid advert. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but Same comment as above, it would have been better to tag and let someone else carry out the deletion. But i think any admin would have readily deleted under either. DGG (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Barrapunto – The speedy deletion was endorsed, and it was determined that the current improved version should be kept. All is good. – Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sure, I ran into Barrapunto when researching Gnupedia. Barrapunto is the first place that Gnupedia was announced, which makes it important. Upon further research, I see this is a website already covered in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was indicated in the article, and also makes it significant, if you really want to get all boring and technical. And as a lark, I decided to check out Barrapunto in Google Trends. There are more people who search for Barrapunto than Wikinews! So therefore Barrapunto fits neither within the letter nor the spirit of A7. And you all need to get a life. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. Did the article say why this subject was notable? If it didn't, the deletion was valid, regardless of how notable it actually is (note that inclusion in another Wikipedia doesn't mean much). If it didn't, it was a valid A7. If it did, it wasn't. Either way, there's nothing stopping you from recreating it, I say go ahead. Also, you may want to lay off the attitude. Doesn't make people want to help you. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that comment wasn't the slightest bit rude. Did you read the end of that essay, Usas, about how invoking it may be a good sign of being subject to it? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to, but I don't have time. I apparently need to go get a life. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This was an article about web content that did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A classic A7(web). Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion(EDIT: but keep current version now that problems have been corrected), perfectly fits both the letter and spirit of A7. --Stormie (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Barrapunto Effect"Because of the huge traffic generated by the site (position 86 in the ranking of sites according to Spanish Alexa), [6] way to cover a news produces a notable increase in visits by the linked websites." [30] Surely the spirit of A7 is not to delete articles about such popular sites simply because they aren't finished being written. The spirit of A7 is, I would think, to make it easy to delete spam, which I assure you this is not. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting Barrapunto. I came across it while researching Gnupedia, was disappointed that the best information I could get on it was a poorly translated version of the Spanish Wikipedia, and decided to do something about it. Anthony (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough (and I see that an improved version of the article has been created which does assert notability". But the version which was speedily deleted per A7 said, in full: "Barrapunto is a Spanish-language Slashdot-like website. The name is derived in the same manner as Slashdot, with the Spanish "http://" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra" and "http://barrapunto.com" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra-barra-punto-punto-com". Barrapunto runs Slash, the open source software used by Slashdot, and materials are published under CC-BY." It could hardly be clearer that this is "An article about .. web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion didn't indicate any importance or significance. Hut 8.5 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's obviously a notable subject (see the es-wiki version of the article), and expanding it to including an assertion of notability will be trivial.--ragesoss (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've undeleted it and expanded it a little bit, since it's clear from a quick search that there are plenty of available sources to put notability beyond doubt, even just in English.--ragesoss (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...certainly the version I see right now isn't indicating the notability of the subject. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Keep current version, but the speedy was technically proper. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't appropriate. You should wait for the DRV to finish. I would urge you to redelete the page pending the conclusion here. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't simply redelete. I expanded it so that the reason for deletion is no longer a concern.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, care to explain the sensible, good-for-the-encyclopedia reason to delete it again? It's clearly a "notable" subject and if it was speedied before simply because the article didn't say that, then undeleting or recreating and then editing it to explain "notability" is a good response. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that the page should not have been undeleted while the DRV discussion was going on. Normally I would agree, but he undeleted it to fix the problems that led to the original deletion. There's no problem with that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; a clearly notable subject, whether or not the deletion was valid at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn or keep current version - Subject passes WP:WEB in astronomical numbers. See [31]. (which includes nontrivial mentions in many notable media). Indicate the notability, however it's done, but this by no means doesn't pass the spirit of WP:WEB. If this is deleted and kept deleted, then Wikipedia is a farce, and WP:NOTAVOTE is ignored. As a side note: I would like to remark that it would be nice if administrators didn't take the lazy route before hitting the A7 button: if they would do a google search and check if it's notable, and do the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the article was written when it was deleted. This is A7 and was rightfully deleted. Administrators are not responsible for "[doing] the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability". Finally, being speedily deleted is not prejudice against re-creation as an article that satisfies well-established policy. «D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it behooves administrators not to delete an article an hour after it was created when notability is so easily seen, even if they don't want to do the legwork themselves. Deletion zeal is one of the greatest sources of ill-will by outsiders and new editors.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now established notability. «D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
