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. Weak keep per additional soruces. v/r - T P 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International House of Mojo[edit]

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

Unremarkable blog that attempts to argue notability through inheritance of associated subjects. All coverage independent of site is trivial in nature or reported business activity. No sources provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Similar as was stated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adventure_Gamers, the International House of Mojo meets WP:WEB criteria #3 because the site's reviews have been quoted on adventure game box covers. Plus, two directors of high profile games started their writing career by writing for the site: Jake Rodkin, who co-directed Tales of Monkey Island, Poker Night at the Inventory, and Puzzle Agent 2, and Andrew Langley who co-directed Jurassic Park: The Game. JenniBees (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - message above by creator shows this is a textbook case of inherited notability or lack thereof (e.g. two now notable directors started their career there), as for meeting WP:WEB, a review excerpt on a game box stretches the notion of #3 significantly. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were also referenced in the print books Rogue Leaders: The Story of LucasArts and Graphic Adventures. That, plus the review excerpt on an official game release by Activision should meet WP:Web. JenniBees (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A game box is not an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Activision would count as the online publisher part of that statement. Regardless, the fact The International House of Mojo was referenced in print books should meet WP:WEB criteria #1. JenniBees (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Adventures is a collection of Wikipedia articles. There is very clearly no depth or breadth of coverage here. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability issues should be cleared up now. I took the advice on the WP:WEB page and left the fact that Jake Rodkin started his career at The International House of Mojo on just his page. I removed the Graphic Adventures reference, as I agree it's not notable. I added a reference to an August 2000 PC Gamer UK magazine article on LucasArts fan games that included The International House of Mojo and featured an interview with a staff member of the site. JenniBees (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would count, but Neil Cicierega's (or Trapezoid as he was known then) animutation site was originally hosted by Mojo as can be seen in : The Wayback Machine and also mentioned by Salon.com over here. Davhorn (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site is quite central to the community surrounding its subject matter — as much as a meeting place and for its content as for its newsfeeds. David Arthur (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problems with the article have been addressed. There are now enough references independent of the subject to show notability.Mohojohn (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (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.