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 of the debate was no consensus, so keep. — Deckiller 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGAF[edit]

Wholly unreferenced; basic forum vanity. This was barely kept as no consensus in a previous AFD, basically on the force of my argument. I've since changed my mind, since none of the reasons I felt the article should be kept can actually be verified, and because these things are essentially unverifiable, given the lack of independent commentary on this forum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ Vic Vipr 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite having 11,932 members according to [1] and an article that's a lot better than most of forum vanity articles usually posted to AfD, I don't really see anyone outside their community looking up this article in Wikipedia. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope that it would be a bit better, since I was the one who rewrote it. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NeoGAF is a forum plus a review site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is alot of cruft that needs to be removed but NeoGAF is a high profile site that should have an article Jedi6-(need help?) 01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you offer a reliable source that shows this, though? I'd personally like to keep this article, but I can't see how it could possibly be sourced. Most of the claims in this article come from me talking personally with some of the long-time members. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable site with high-profile industry members. Article quality is not equivalent to notability. --TJive 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, none of those claims can be sourced. Can you offer a reliable source that can show that it has high-profile industry members? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of sources is an argument against being featured, not against the article existing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article is unverifiable, that is an argument against keeping it. I'm asserting that no claim about this article can be sourced ever, because there's no outside discussion of this site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is. This, however, is hardly the case. David Jaffe? Merely find the user name he goes under and get the evidence from him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Asking him in e-mail isn't a citable source, though. Is there a reliable. citable source to back any claim in this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ask him in email to present evidence on the forums of his identity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not a citable source either. Is there a reliable. citable source (do go read that) to back any claim in this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • How is that not a citable source? Since when has a (proven) NeoGAF user being David Jaffe not been proof enough that he is David Jaffe? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
                    That's why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And what if it were a post from nintendo.com's forums from an NOA user? Does that cease to be usable because he or she posted it on a forum? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We're not talking about the NOA forums here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If the GAF user can prove that he is David Jaffe, I see no problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It's not a matter of just proof. If the fact that Jaffe comments on this forum is such a minor fact that no outside source has ever commented upon it, then Wikipedia doesn't need to comment on it. We don't have The McDonalds down the street from David Jaffe's house. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • David Jaffe is an example. If you'll notice, the thing you're claiming cannot be cited is not a minor fact; the fact that David Jaffe posts on GAF is smaller than the fact that many developers and insiders in the industry (such as editors of notable websites such as 1UP). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article's history only shows that "A Man in Black" has nominated the article for deletion. Numerous anon editors wrote the article. I think that Black should remove all the unsourced information that he/she added to the article, then renominate the article. Much of the article was written in April and May, when citing sources was not viewed as critical as it is now. Maybe that's just my perspective. Some of the information might be verified by just visiting the website. I don't think that there needs to be an independent source to verify that "the sky is blue" when anyone can look at the sky to know its blue. Royalbroil 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the information in the article (other than "This forum exists"), whether added by me or anons, is unsourced, and indeed unverifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article history shows a lot of editorial activity, the least of which was A Man In Bl♟ck. At the point where the only outside reference is the website itself, it looks like an advertisement. No notability claimed or implied. Tychocat 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's "time has wisened me" re-nomination. It simply fails WP:V --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:28, 8 July 2006 (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.