Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tek9

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tek9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Gaming website of questionable notability. Almost all claims are sourced to the website itself - little referencing from independent reliable sources. Google search on Tek9 "call of duty" shows mainly blog mentions, primary sources, and social media - no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB#Criteria. The citations are almost entirely self-referential and I fail to see that a Facebook page, YouTube video and a couple of fansites equate to WP:RS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Firstly, I have just added a third party reliable reference publication, an article on Tek9 (in dutch) printed in De Standaard - a massive recognised Flemish newspaper. Secondly, Nieuwsbank (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuwsbank) released a press release on tek9 (a reliable press release company with free lance journalists, all of which are third party, the website is not affiliated to gaming) - I have added this reference as well. Thirdly, one of these 'fan' sites you label as an unreliable source actually has a Wikipedia page of its own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotfrag , from that Wikipedia page I can directly quote (originally taken from the New York Post) ' New York Post writer Michael Kane called GotFrag "the best source of gaming [information] for the hard-core community'.Fourthly, the youtube page is a video displaying footage from a TV documentary show - Kloppen, broadcast to over 1million Belgian viewers. This documentary is well known on Belgian TV channel Een - the publisher should be considered reliable.Additionally, Cadred's only affiliation with Tek9 is that it is owned by the same company. Also having a wikipedia page on its own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadred, Cadred pays its journalists (one of which is essentially full time) to write articles on its website - a further indication of journalistic objectivity is therefore proven due to its professionalism.Innocuousm (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)— Innocuousm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please check out the popularity of the references before establishing that it is of questionable notability. Alexa.org ranks it higher than other websites who already have pages on the wikipedia, such as cadred, with the latter being ranked at 139,237, and the former at 79,059. References from mainstream media have been inserted, as well as from other websites which target the same subjects. If that does not suffice, looking at numbers will be enough. TEK9 Cinema productions have been viewed by hundreds of thousands, such as this, which currently clocks at 634,076 viewers, and a simple audio interview has 65,377. Monthly contests^[1] for best in-game kills all get more than 20,000 viewers each. Mikk90 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)— Mikk90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fansites should only be listed on wiki if they have an impact on the outside world. Not notable enough. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Harizonotoh9. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources, as described by Innocuousm, are reliable. Arguments to delete are WP:JNN. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 7 October 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.