Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DS Meet

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 delete. Shanel 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DS_Meet

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Gweedo767 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. NN, Vanity. Cdcon 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. While I agree with you that this page is to trivial for Wikipedia, I should note out to other wikipedians that Gweedo767 is the administrator of a rival website. Just to put things in perspective. IRbaboon 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep.I could not disagree more. This is not self-promotion because I decided DS Meet needs mor exposure. It's a legitimate, growing community. Just as Nintendowifi.com and Nsider get pages, DS Meet does as well. It's the same service, just an alternative form of it. Agahnim 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I think this is a perfectally good page, it has plenty of interesting information, and is not plugging the site. It has some real knowlaedge in it. Lattyware (Not Logged In) --81.79.50.2 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Violates the following rule: "This page could be considering plugging a website. Any form of advertising like that is a violation of Wikipedia policies." catchphrase 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I then move that we delete the Nsider, IGN, and GameFAQs entries, based on the fact that they are plugging a website. Agahnim 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Being suitable for Wikipedia is more then just a definition. The site should be sufficiently large, recognisable and popular. IRbaboon 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I agree that this entry does give keen information to readers. If this entry is deleted, than the NSider, GameFAQ's, and others should be deleted too. We are an alternative. Streetsim 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. DSmeet is a well run community of DS players with a very active exchange of gameplay and game related advice. Plus with MKbot and AC:WW automated catalogue they have helped many get the most out of thier games. I think anyone searching for DS and DS related topics would be better off with knowledge of this site. WillofWarrior

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. DSmeet is a great site, and it is not "trivial" though it is small.

• • Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Alexa rank, though not stellar, is in the 90,000's, which is higher than most non-notable forums. Google presence[1] isn't insignificant either. I don't really feel I know enough to judge whether this is notable though; no vote. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The relevant policy is WP:WEB requiring outside verifiability. This article does not appear to comply with it. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everything notable is verifiable, not all that is verifiable is notable; not all that's deleted is non-notable, not all who wander are lost ... hey, where was I? Adrian Lamo ·· 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, WP:WEB is, ideally, there to make decisions easier for us, not to make our decisions for us. I do agree that this is tending towards non-notability, and WP:WEB is important here. It strikes me as a (somewhat) close call, though. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn game forum --Ruby 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am disgusted by this. --DJH47 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm. That's a bit strong for a civilized AfD, no? Adrian Lamo ·· 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

DJH47 and I are friends, so he likely feels angered that the website of his friend ended up on Wikipedia in what he feels is vandalism or self-promotion. I had nothing to do with the creation of this article, but now that it is here I must admit that I wish it could stay. --Echelon 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe that the move for deletion was brought on by a competing website. Gweedo767 happens to run WitendoFi, and he has repeatedly tried to comment when DSmeet or other websites that compete with his are mentioned on blogs or other websites (this instance on Wikipedia is another instance of such). Some evidence: [2] [3] I believe this is the motivating factor behind his push to delete this article, and I ask that you consider it when you make your decision. As for whether or not DSmeet is actually a notable website, I have some thoughts on that as well: DSmeet has a fair Alexa rating, and has been mentioned often in the press. I believe that the impact this website serves in the Nintendo community is absolutely not trivial, and I also believe that Nintendo is closely monitoring websites like DSmeet to see how to best conduct their future online endevors, as this is an important new direction for their business with the Nintendo WFC. Full Disclosure: I am the owner of DSmeet and I do believe DSmeet is non-trivial, but I also acknowledge that I am a heavily biased individual. In any matter, I await your vote whatever the outcome may be. --Echelon 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. DSmeet simply isn't a big enough community to require a Wikipedia article. A compromise would be to add a section on friend code sites in the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection article giving a brief summary of each website (all while keeping an NPOV). Most of the article is indeed plugging a website and is an article that simply isn't needed. (Sidenote: I am a moderator on this forum and yet disagree with this article being online.) --Sakurina 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse User:Sakurina's proposed solution as reasonable, but don't feel qualified to do this myself. User:Sakurina, would you like to try for adding this section? Worst that can happen is getting reverted .. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've been thinking about my earlier proposal, and I actually must go back on it. DSmeet has, by far, more users and traffic than the others combined. It's more impacting in the Nintendo community. I think if we did a general article on all friend code websites, it would simply ignore the reality that there is only one "big" and "active" directory/service. Consider this: I now think of this issue in terms of an article on, say, an IMDB competitor. There are hundreds of them scattered about the web, but none of them are as significant or well known as IMDB is. If we were to make a general "DS Friendcode Services" article, it would be the same as creating, say, a "Movie Database Websites" article. I think that would miss the point--IMDB is significant in movie culture. DSmeet is significant in the Nintendo WiFi culture. --Sakurina 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 55,000 Google results for "DS Meet" and "DSmeet." I'm not sure how many are necessary for it to be considered "notable," but, at any rate, if the problem is that the article is plugging the site, why not just correct the article instead of deleting it? It would be a fine part of a collection of articles about the online communities Nintendo's first true venture into online gaming is creating. -Wild Bill 03:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote: Keep. I'm changing my vote because I completely forgot that we could simply edit the article to modifying the non-NPOV/plugging aspects of the article. And with the recently posted proof that DSmeet is more notable than I thought it was, this simply made me want to change my vote. --Sakurina 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't really seem notable enough. J.J.Sagnella 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just about. Glad I looked at the article though, I thought at first it was some Dom/sub forum or something! Jcuk 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's immature for a competing site's member to have his competitor's article deleted. --HydraPheetz 05:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have to disagree with DS_Meet being considered a "trivial" website. As previously mentioned, DS_Meet has received alot of recognition throughout the web. Users join DS_Meet to fill a void left by Nintendo's own community and are provided with useful tools and information to enhance their gaming experience. I feel it is a notable website and should be allowed to remain in Wikipedia. Gweedo767's reasons for requesting removal are clearly personal and should be discounted as such. --NisMax 07:40, 19 February 2006 (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.