- 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. Secret account 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Vidya Gaem Awards ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This does not meet the notability requirements. Most of the article relies on self-referential or self-published content. I'm not even sure that the two independent sources support notability either. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: These appear to be the only three reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. Sam Walton ( talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable "awards" given out by messageboard users. Coverage is very minimal and says little other than "it exists". Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Hits on gry-online.pl and a two-sentence Kotaku article. For the sources currently used in the article, I'm not sure about Gamona's reliability, Giant Bomb is not a reliable source, and the primary sources aren't useful for establishing whether the awards are notable by independent, secondary sources. I don't see significant coverage to meet the GNG—not many hits for either "vidya gaem award" or "/v/mas", and thus not enough content to write an article. At first I considered a redirect to a new article, the only reasonable spin-off, /v/ (4chan), but after a quick search, I don't think /v/ has sig cov as of now either. czar ⨹ 08:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Minor question regarding Giant Bomb. Are you suggesting that the paricular citation is unreliable or the entire site in general? I ask because if it is the latter it goes against what the sourcing page linked to says. The site is listed as situational and is considered reliable or news coverage and reviews by staff members. If on the other hand you were calling it unreliable the article in question did not meet the situational threshold to be considered reliable please disregard.--
69.157.253.160 (
talk)
22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is what Czar meant, but the Giant Bomb article doesn't actually mention these awards, it just seems to be being used to back up the statement about negative reception of another award ceremony.
Sam Walton (
talk)
23:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure either, but the general consensus on GB is that their articles written by staff members are usable, but their wikia-like stuff is not, per
WP:SPS - any ol' random person could alter it at any time. I don't have a link, so I can't tell for sure which it is, but either way, even usuable sources don't seem to be covering it in
significant detail.
Sergecross73
msg me
00:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- 69.157 is right—I read it wrong. Alex Navarro writing for Giant Bomb should be okay. (GB is almost always a link to their wiki, which would be unreliable.) This said, a skim of the GB source doesn't mention the Vidya Gaems, so it wouldn't be used to prove notability anyway. Only sites I found were the ones Sam mentioned above and the brief gry-online stuff (not enough content to write an article). czar ⨹ 01:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure either, but the general consensus on GB is that their articles written by staff members are usable, but their wikia-like stuff is not, per
WP:SPS - any ol' random person could alter it at any time. I don't have a link, so I can't tell for sure which it is, but either way, even usuable sources don't seem to be covering it in
significant detail.
Sergecross73
msg me
00:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is what Czar meant, but the Giant Bomb article doesn't actually mention these awards, it just seems to be being used to back up the statement about negative reception of another award ceremony.
Sam Walton (
talk)
23:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Minor question regarding Giant Bomb. Are you suggesting that the paricular citation is unreliable or the entire site in general? I ask because if it is the latter it goes against what the sourcing page linked to says. The site is listed as situational and is considered reliable or news coverage and reviews by staff members. If on the other hand you were calling it unreliable the article in question did not meet the situational threshold to be considered reliable please disregard.--
69.157.253.160 (
talk)
22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any idea how much votes are cast? PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 10:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean?
Sergecross73
msg me
21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I imagine votes cast towards the awards. In any case, it doesn't matter for our purposes since we need secondary source coverage czar ⨹ 03:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.