Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Freaks 365

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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game Freaks 365

Tagged for speedy as "advertisement/self promotion", which isn't a speedy unless it's pure spam which this doesn't appear to be. Article may have other problems, however. -Splash^talk 04:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep with Massive Cleanup The structure is there and there are interesting notes about the site. However I have neither the expertise nor patience to edit the article. Maybe someone, somewhere does and it actually sounds like it could be interesting. Powers of i 04:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Alexa ranking of 37,449. Needs lots of work but seems notable. - Sensor 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup then keep google returns 267,000 results I agree with the previous two votes. -- Malo 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I agree that there is some notability here, but that does not make it inherently worth having an article on wikipedia. Alexa ranks it at ~37,500 (link), but I think that number is rather unremarkable, and does not automatically suggest that there needs to be a wiki article on it. Contrary to the implicit claims, the growth of the site is stable, neither growing or declining much. Also, I pose these questions: Do we need a page describing a website which one can just as easily visit themselves? Does this website have some kind of notable permiation of online circles or videogame circles? I don't know. I don't think a strong case could be made to keep, and I do think a convincing case could be made to delete. Having said all this, I think it's too close for me to feel comfortable voting, but I just wanted to try to provoke some more critical discussion. Aside from anything else, I think that when in doubt, it should be left. If it does stay, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, because at the moment it reads somewhere between an advertisement and an 'about us' page which would belong on the actual site (not here) ps. sorry for the length of this comment --Qirex 07:30, 23 October 2005 (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.