Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GotFrag

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 keep. The concerns of the "delete" !voters seem to have been addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GotFrag

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

No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources in Google to indicate meeting WP:WEB. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no WP:RS for this site, and what references are used on the article now are all first-person (except the one cnet blog entry)... fails WP:WEB as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the CNET piece is just a brief announcement of an buisness acquisition, which talks more about the company that acquired GotFrag than about GotFrag. Everything I found was either obvious promotioinal material or user contributed comments at sites like Urban Dictionary. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB --Teancum (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. GlassCobra 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See: [1] "Gotfrag is the best source of gaming info for the hard-core community." [2] [3] [4] [5]. The game demos GotFrag archives were used in scientific research: [6]. Used as a source by GameSpot [7]. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Odie's sources prove that it is notable and a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Raybourne (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, based on a couple of the sources cited above (especially the Kane book which does mention the site several times). I have striken my delete vote, but I encourage editors interested in the article to acutally cite some of these more notable sources in the article itself to avoid ending up here again.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does it at the end of the AfD I'll try to (at least adding some to external links.) Can't say I have much interest in the subject, but I agree they shouldi be added. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gotfrag is the goto source for eSports coverage, and any attempt to cover eSports in an encyclopedic fashion should cover Gotfrag. The issue is that there's few sources about the website itself, and you'll likely find the same issue with other trade publications. Given Odie's sources though, I think the subject does pass notability guidelines. - hahnch e n 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just ekes through the independent coverage of the site requirements of WP:WEB. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 12 October 2009 (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.