Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Video Game Museum

message: Redirected.
--Thomas Buckwalter 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I noticed that the Video Game Museum wiki has been scheduled for deletion.
It's true that I was warned twice about "spamming" a while ago, but I was new and I didn't really knew the rules and guidelines were so deep. I saw each game page had links to other websites containing information and images about the game, so I thought "Hey, maybe I could put the game ending links here" All links were directly to the game ending, it wasn't like I was linking to the main page either. I also don't know why was it wrong when I did it since I've seen other users link to the VGMuseum on a few game pages and those haven't been removed. There is a game that links directly to a FAQ I did on gamefaqs and that wasn't removed either.
I do not own the VGMuseum, nor am I the webmaster or the creator of the website. The wiki on VGMuseum is not self promotion since I only mention myself as being a staff member. All other comments and history were made objectively.
If something looks like self promotion (of me or the site) please tell me so and I'll remove it or modify it. But quite frankly, if gamefaqs and 1up.com have wikipedia pages, why can't VGM have one?
If the fact that it was I that added most of the information is what makes it look like self promotion, then... would it make any difference if someone else adds the information on wikipedia?
If none of the staff members or the webmaster can add the information, can we still give it to someone else to add it? After all, who else than the staff members would know all the history of the page?
Thanks in advance.
ReyVGM 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According the article you are a key contributor to the web site. However, your association is less of a concern than the simple lack of notability. Others may disagree. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FOMC gets 2800 hits on Google news; the top ten hits are Industry Week, Forbes, Bloomberg, Dallas Morning News, Albany Times Union, Inman.com, Aspen Times, Financial Times, Reuters, and Business Day. Video Game Museum gets 1 hit on Google news, and it's a blog. The notability criterion and the WP:WEB guideline are founded on the policies of no original research and verifiability. When I say something is non-notable, I am not making some vague insult that no one finds it important; I am saying that the Wikipedia community experience is that we cannot write an encyclopedic article on the subject. I have read through this entire AfD, thank you very much, and I have found nothing that satisfies WP:WEB. If you have additional, qualitatively different evidence, you are welcome to present it; until then my vote remains delete. Melchoir 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended Discussion

message: Anyone else want to?  This is what should have been done rather than the knee-jerk AfD. Bobak 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took a stab at clean-up 

message: *Well the thread speaks for itself.  --170.20.11.116 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shh!  Logic doesn't always work in Wikipedia.  Mob rule is the order of the day.  Bobak 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are (were) right. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You nominated KLOV for deletion, Garglebutt, which confirms everything I commented with you on your/my talk pages.  You are not in any way familiar with the video game scene.  KLOV is cited by major media outlets like Newsweek and other popular outlets like The Onion.  Don't nominate AfD simply because you apparently have issues with ReyVGM. Bobak 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn! You have no idea about my motives and I have absolutely nothing against ReyVGM. The fact you consider yourself a bigger fanboy than me is great for you, but of no interest to me. I have an astronomy web site that is widely linked and mentioned in international press but I don't see any reason to have an article about it on Wikipedia and would put it up for afd if someone did start an article on it. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Garglebutt, don't put those sites up for deletion :( Apparently you're not very familiar with the VG scene (as others have said) but I can asure you KLOV and Mobygames are very famous (even though Moby has crappy screenshots :P) Those sites (and VGM) aren't hurting anyone :) ReyVGM 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your weak, ego-driven side point about being into astronomy has really little reference here --especially since the video game website I admin (which also isn't listed) has been mentioned in published video game magazines throughout the US and Europe.  I'm also an attorney.  What does that mean?  As little as your own above argument.  Logic, however does have something going for it --which is why your attempt to AfD KLOV is getting smacked down for the insecure vendetta that you've made this.  Your, at best paltry, knowledge of video games gives you little to know basis for nominating AfD in this area (now astronomy, go wild as far as I care).   You keep pretending that your motives aren't as plain as day, but you've left a trail that leaves things clear to a neutral observer.  Bobak 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's try to keep this WP:CIVIL! Argue facts, not motivations. Thanks! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, JiFish.  Fact(1): Garglebutt opened this AfD by citing his displeasure at other actions by ReyVGM; Fact(2): I and other argue that avid gamers recognize the legitimacy of the VG Museum, regardless of how bad the article is written; Fact(3): when asked in quite civil talk page questions as to whether he's a gamer, Garglebutt said he is and that he is not in any way motivated by his earlier comments about ReyVGM (feel free to look this up).  Now, to this point it's not certain that we have anything more than a difference of opinion.... However: Fact(4): As soon as ReyVGM came into this dispute and cited the extremely well known KLOV, Garglebutt immediately nominates it for deletion; Fact(5): Don't take my word for it: the AfD page for KLOV is a tidal wave of keep.  Why?  Because deleting it would shock the conscience of anyone who follows the video game scene.  Those are all facts, 100%.  I submit that readers take what they will from them.  There's danger in someone who doesn't really know about a particular topic and/or culture going around and doing AfD nominations.  Bobak 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (I apologize, should all this below the dashes be moved to the Discussion page?  This is the first time I've ever been in an AfD dispute on Wikipedia) Bobak 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Garglebutt opened this AfD by citing his displeasure at other actions by ReyVGM"  I do admit I was warned several times last year, but I was new and like most 'noobs' I thought I could just add and edit whatever I wanted. In an hour or so I added a bunch of ending links to a bunch of game pages here, JiFish sent me several warnings but I never saw them until I was done and saw the new message appear up there. The matter was settled after that, no need to keep saying it considering I never spammed again. "he is not in any way motivated by his earlier comments about ReyVGM " I said several times that if the article needed to be changed/fixed to look less like an advertisement then that could be done, I asked him several times to tell me what to remove and I removed it. My guess is that he doesn't really care what gets fixed or removed, he just wants the article deleted. This is my first time writing an article and you know what wiki page I took as a model to make the VGM one? The Gamefaqs page. The GameFaqs wiki has a bunch of Top 100 games lists, mentions a bunch of moderators and a list of all the people that have copied their forums designs. So I said 'well, if they have that there then I guess I can mention the staff members and artistic designs VGM has had in the past', but no, that's called vanity. "As soon as ReyVGM came into this dispute and cited the extremely well known KLOV, Garglebutt immediately nominates it for deletion" That was just to prove his point that he has nothing against me or VGM. But after you came into the picture it has been made aparent that he is indeed against something. I don't buy that non-notability crap, especially after posting all those links from IGN, NYtimes and Gamefaqs which were removed.ReyVGM 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to assume good faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I never once said any of these sites weren't popular and useful to their target audience. My afd nominations were purely based on whether they warranted an article on Wikipedia, as was my comment about my astronomy web site. I note from the speedy keep that KLOV is far less disputed re notability than this article. Let's try to retain an iota of objectivity here folks. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactored from project page