Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamingShogun

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Addhoc (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GamingShogun[edit]

GamingShogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod removed by persistent WP:SPA (it was also previously speedied at Gamingshogun.com), so here we are. Non-notable, 4-month old website. Alexa rank well above (below?) 2 million. Second 'ref' razerzone.com participated in a giveaway contest with GamingShogun, so is hardly an independent, third-party reliable source. Shawis (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Well" above (below) is inaccurate. The current Alexa ranking is 2,352,981. This is up from 5+ million just a couple months ago.MondoPest (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
  • Delete not notable; seems to be advert --Mhking (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is informational just like Kotaku's or Gamespot's MondoPest (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
  • Delete Only reference is to a site of questionable reliability itself. No independent reliable references. This is probably just a nudge above speediable, but I see nothing here to indicate an ultimately worthwhile subject for a wikipedia article yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:WEB, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Razer did NOT participate in the giveaway. The giveaway was done independently, so Razer's references to the GamingShogun website are verifiable and notable as the Razerzone.com site is the OFFICIAL site of Razer USA Ltd. Also, I must apologize for the previous entry of gamingshogun.com, I am still new at the Wikipedia system and it was not well-formed. This entry, however, is not advertisement as stated before but purely informational regarding a website that may be ranked lower on Alexa (2,352,981 UP from 5+ Million two months ago!) but does have a popular (albeit niche) userbase. The Boomslang CE 07 mouse review has received over 600 views and is on the front page of Google when searching for 'Razer Boomslang CE 07 Review' terms. Surely, that is notable! MondoPest (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
"Participated" may not have been the ideal word choice, but since the prize in the giveaway was a "Razer Tarantula" gaming keyboard, I think there is obviously some form of cooperation between the companies. Neither company in a cross-promotion is a particularly reliable source for the other. Shawis (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no cross-promotion, we had the unit so we gave it away. We submitted the review to Razer after our review and they seemed to like it enough to put it on their site - same with the rest of the products we review. We are gamers and as such tend towards specific types of products. I hope I don't come off as defensive, but the site is basically a 'gamer-run' site and we put are heart and soul into it and feel the site has gotten large enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.MondoPest (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
Heck, look at an entry like Kotaku's. It is very similar and it is allowed. They do basically the same thing with giveaways, worse even as they DO 'sponsored' giveaways. MondoPest (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
If you are associated with the site, then to be honest, you shouldn't be making or contributing towards an article on it. Neutral point of view is a key Wikipedia policy, and what we have here is a conflict of interest. I suggest delete on principle. Marasmusine (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and an obvious WP:COI, (MondoPest is named in the article as a Contributing Editor) -- RoninBK T C 07:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Possibly even a speedy under CSD G4. Lankiveil (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable soures establish any sort of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, again, a multi-million dollar company's (Razer USA Ltd) referencing GamingShogun as a reputable press site is not notable or reliable? MondoPest (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
The problem with the Razer mentions is that they don't establish Gaming Shogun's notability. All it says is that they reviewed Razer's products, (and I'm not even going to factor in whether or not said review was compensated.) It doesn't say anything about whether or not Gaming Shogun is any more notable then a random schmuck's Blogger site. It adds up to what our guidelines call a "trivial mention." Besides, the Notability test requires multiple sources to establish notability.
And to your comparison to Kotaku, et. al, no offense but you're no Kotaku -- RoninBK T C 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics, they do the same thing we do, the only difference is they have more users. How many users does it take to garner a wiki entry? Is there some specific number?75.22.80.118 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
It's not the amount of users, it's the number of nontrivial reliable sources written about the site. -- RoninBK T C 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. Well I guess I can understand that. Sorry, again, I'm just being too defensive. We are not a huge corporation or anything, it is fan-run. So the two things I take from this debate are that we need more non-trivial references to the site and we need to have one of our users post the entry at that time, to avoid COI, correct? As far as format of the entry is concerned: Should there be any big changes aside from the adding of those non-trivial sources?MondoPest (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
First off, read Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Secondly, (and this is gonna sound kinda harsh,) forget about Wikipedia. Focus on growing your own website in normal ways. You'll know when you're big enough to be included on Wikipedia when one of your fans writes the article for you. -- RoninBK T C 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harshness taken in the least, that is fine advice to be sure.MondoPest (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GamingShogun&oldid=1137869566"