Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameShampoo

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 speedy deleted according to the WP:CSD#A7 tag that was placed on the article. The sources fail to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements, and the claims of notability were not credible or meaningful, therefore the article qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It is disturbing to see the single purpose accounts that have appeared here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GameShampoo[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non notable website fails to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB. Article has 4 references. Two are press releases from gamasutra.com and due to the lack of independence, cannot be used to establish notability. One is a list from BayCon2012, a SciFi convention. The coverage is not significant or independent and can't be used to establish notability. The last is a shottily written press release from develop-online.net with no author which in my opinion isn't reliable or independent and can't be used to establish notability. I can find no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources in a Google News search or a Google News Archive search.

The only claim of importance in the article, in my opinion, comes from the sources listed and as none can be used to establish notability, I believe the article qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. An SPA editor with 7 edits removed an A7 tag placed by another user. There have been 6 WP:SPA editors editing the page with a total of 20 edits between them which in my opinion and in the opinion Hairhorn, stinks of a sock drawer. Since it's an online community, it could also be meatpuppetry. I only bring it up here in case there's ballot stuffing. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the talk page:

This page should not have been marked for deletion. Reasons are as follows:

The references establish notability, including three articles from reputable sites that mention the website
Website is based in a physical location (San Francisco) as shown in the references
Website has made appearance in a major convention, as shown in the references
According to Alexa, this website is in the top 20,000 visited in the US, and top 100,000 in the world (as of 6/18/2011)

Based on the above, I argue that the website's notability is established, and the page must remain Matrimater (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Matrimater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Commment - I use the site, and from the Alexa ranking it seems to be more popular then other sites here. The physical location established and convention appearance also contribute.CorporalBB (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— CorporalBB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - This is like a Yahoo Answers for video games. It is used by me and my friends to help us with video games. Since Yahoo answers has an entry in wikipedia, why wouldn't this one? 166.250.33.191 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 166.250.33.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - I verified that this is a top 20,000 US site according to Alexa.. 198.228.216.23 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.228.216.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Completely non-notable website. Every single "source" provided in the article is a press release, which, of course, never counts as a reliable source. Searching for sources on my own gives me nothing about the site that isn't first party. I noticed that the article was already tagged for Speedy Deletion (as it should have been), but a non-admin user with very few edits removed it, which is not proper. I'll go ahead and restore the Speedy Tag, with the hope that this article can just be deleted without having to go through the whole week of AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I should have addressed this is my nomination as the argument was already made on the talk page. Alexa rankings do not prove notability. Notability is defined at WP:N and it has many subsections. The subsections that would apply were noted in my nomination (WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:WEB). There may be another but I can't think of one. The essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions covers making arguments about hit, specifically in the section WP:GOOGLEHITS. As the essay explains, Alexa rankings, page hits, or search hits for a topic don't help to establish notability which is needed for a subject to be included in the encyclopedia. The only reason Google News or Google News Archive search results or relevant is because it can help satisfy WP:GNG and even then, specific articles must qualify to be used to establish notability; it's not just based on search result hits. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:50, 19 June 2012 (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.