Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gametoast

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gametoast[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars modding forum that fails the WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 543,182 [1] and few relevant google results [2].--TBCTaLk?!? 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that filefront.com publishes a lot of Gametoast material. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." --authraw 01:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that FileFront is not considered a non-trivial website, since anyone with a FileFront account can upload material on it. Claiming notability due to having a file on FileFront is no different than having a website on Geocities or having a flash cartoon on Newgrounds. --TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's true. Is it also the same with Gamespot and Download.com? --authraw 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike FileFront, Newgrounds, or Geocities where the users upload the material; on Download.com and Gamespot, it's mainly the staff that chooses what material to include on the website.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Authraw, I'm concerned that much of the current content in the article is original research. What I mean is that you didn't cite any reliable third-party sources. That's not really a delete concern (I'm going to figure out whether something like Gamespot/Download.com is considered a content distributor, but my feeling is that it is.) but I'm not sure that the current article's contents can be verified. ColourBurst 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the site speak for itself as far as verification? I mean, if its mention on Gamespot and Download.com makes it "notable", can't the information about the site come from the site itself? That being said, I'm not certain (and never have been) that the highlighted maps are notable in themselves--but the rest of the article seems fine to me as far as being verified.

"Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves"

The above quote is from WP:V. As far as verification goes, it seems to me that the article is covered. Or am I reading this wrong? --authraw 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, having material on trivial websites such as FileFront, Geocities, or Newgrounds, does not satisfy WP:V, since anyone with an account can upload material to those websites.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But I provided two instances where Download.com and Gamespot posted Gametoast material (Gamespot and Download.com). The filefront issue, as agreed, is irrelevant. --authraw 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter; take a look at this (From WP:RS):

We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher.

I believe the small section in WP:V was meant for a way to get little bits of information in an article that wouldn't otherwise have it. It was certainly not meant to circumvent the need for reliable third-party sources, and certainly an article should not be filled with self-published information (as that defeats the whole point of WP:V.) ColourBurst 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see. Thanks for helping me wade through the policies! Based on this information, I have added my vote. --authraw 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject matter of this article is almost completely unverifiable. --authraw 20:06, 26 September 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.