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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GI Online[edit]

1. all relevant info is already at Game Informer under Website 2. Blatant advertisement 3. nn web community in and of itself Chevinki 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

delete per norm with fan-sites and myspace attempts. ZBrannigan 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definately Delete Sounds like a badly-worded ad. DTD _(speak)
This does not need to be deleted. The information is not complete, and is still under development. The information is not the same as the Game Informer Magazine either. Nick, Production Assistant on Game Informer Online, asked us to make one. You can find his request here. It will be cleaned up. We have had problems with members from here deleting and adding profanity and nonscences, so that had to be dealt with as well. It will be better and work is being done slowly. If people complain about it,then they should contribute. That is the point of wiki. This is for others to add in information they want. If you want something added, contact me or do some research onyour own and add it.Juganhut 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not delete. Gameinformer Online is a full website with a history to it, just let the wiki article blossom, it will take time so let build - apocalidiot *do not touch*

The Game Informer Online wikipedia entry shouldn't be deleted. As said by another user, it's only the beginning of an effort to create a stable and useful page. There is an inherent difference between the Game Informer magazine and the Game Informer website. They both have their own culture, coverage, style, and impact upon the gaming community. While both may be Game Informer, there are enough differences and content for both entities to have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkelley (talk • contribs)
Merge with Game Informer, if there is any information to merge. It's certainly part of Game Informer, and deserves a note in the article, but like the GameFAQs boards, it probably does not deserve its own article. Maybe if the Game Informer article gets too big, it could be split out. Kesac 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not delete or merge. I and other users are working on the art, and I am in contact with Nick from GI about the page. Quatreryukami 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The issue isn't if it can be expanded. The issue is if it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia as set out by WP:WEB. It doesn't have multiple published works about it or any notable awards. "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." Not trying to get anyone down (I like Game Informer as a gaming mag), just trying to clean Wiki up. Chevinki 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to above. This article, while it may be messy ( as i have noted myself, I added the clean up tag) there is definatly enough info available to make an art. AND Nick and I are in contact, and he will be giving me info that can be added. Does that qualify as Original Research? I hope not... also, notablility can be established with web traffic and a link to GI mag, can it not?Quatreryukami 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment' Notability must be established on its own accord according to WP:WEB. Web traffic doesn't count because it's WP:BIGNUMBER. Unless there have been been multiple independent publications to establish the notability of this particular forum or it's won some big awards it's nn. Just because it's a forum of a notable magazine doesn't mean the forum itself is notable. Chevinki 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment' It's not just about the forum, it covers the whole website.

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be any merge-able material here.--ZayZayEM 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.