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 merge to NeoGAF. There is a clear consensus that the information present in this article should instead be a section at the target. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ResetEra

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

ResetEra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in 2018 due to failing GNG as nearly all content *about* the site was related to the site it spun off from. WP:INHERITORG and all that jazz. Nothing much has changed; very little significant coverage about the site outside of the origin story in the years since. Certainly nothing that differentiates it from, say, a subreddit on a similar topic. The inevitable dreary culture wars infighting in Talk are just a depressing bonus feature. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove the references that are about the split (which is not what I suggest as the formation of the site was notable) we’d remove about nine citations. We’d still have 20 citations from mostly WP:VG/RS, plenty for even the most entry-level stub, that discuss the impact this website has on the industry. Of course I'm going to argue the article should remain. :) Am I correct in understanding that is an option still? I've taken the opportunity to edit out large parts of the article that are in this vein - about the sites creation and unreferenced claims - as an example of what it could look like if we decide it should remain (I'm leaving the Criticism section but I would agree that's weakly sourced. I don't want to appear to be trying something improper).
In that regard, a merge is less than ideal. While a discussion for another day, I feel it would be awkward to have the newer successor be a footnote to the now less popular progenitor. I know notability and RS restrict us here, but if it comes to that, and I truly hope it does not, I would rather, begrudgingly, recommend a deletion. To the nominator's comment about the culture wars, while we're not here to right great wrongs, we shouldn't also kowtow to disruption or difficulty in our work here.
There is a sociopolitical element to the interest in this website that continues to stir up trouble I feel compelled to mention. Take a look at the talk page, recent reverted edits, and my request to protect the page. Very WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don’t know how organized this is, but there’s a consistent pressure to delete this article, not out of upholding the principles of Wikipedia, but out of a strong bias and deeply unhealthy desire to see the site discredited. I don’t know how much that weighs into the discussion here, but I feel like it’s an elephant worth mentioning. To be clear, I’m not accusing everyone who is commenting to delete/merge of this bias, but that it exists in a sizable amount of recent participation around this article. Ckoerner (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NeoGAF or Delete. I have no love for NeoGAF, it's a hell of a chudhole, but to me, this article does not fulfill notability adequately, and just because it might be seen as a win in the culture war I do not think should be enough to keep this article as is. When I look at the page, what I see is a lot of really trivial information being used to prop it up. Like, "In the media" to me is just... kind of fluffy. Really fluffy. Also, it cites itself for its usercount, and I dunno policy for that, but isn't the general wisdom that if a reliable secondary source doesn't list it, it's not really an important number? And to me, industry people using the website also feels really trivial. Less so for the Q&A stuff (I'm not calling it Q&Era), but overall a lot of this could be trimmed down very easily. And of course, the Criticism section literally only cites tweets and forums. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NeoGAF or Delete. Unlike a lot of folks here, I don't have what you could call a grudge against the forum. For example, I was never banned there because...well, never made an account there. But I still lurk and hover, hopeful for the odd leak or major news break here and there, which is precisely where I'm coming from: I honestly can't even remember the last time anything of significance happened on there. An insane amount of internet drama, but not much else. There's simply not much to the site other than a footnote on GAF's article. And I don't believe something should be rewarded for notoriety instead of notability. The last time ResetEra was in the news, it was because of a boycott they started to enforce. Before that...another boycott. On and on. ResetEra gets outraged by something, someone else gets pissed off by them. Etc etc. The only discussion the site spurs is endless political toxicity between the two spectrums, of which we have plenty as it is. I just don't think they accomplished enough in what they set out to do to meet required notability, while gathering plenty of notoriety in what they didn't set out to do.--ZigguratZone (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC) — ZigguratZone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
More