Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Gaming Tour

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. All forms of "keep" are undoubtedly related. Take these away and it's a WP:SNOW close. If anyone can find a source or three worth considering, drop by my talk page. — Scientizzle 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because the forum at http://www.igtour.pro.tc/, 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}}.

International Gaming Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Notability. SkyWalker (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources to verify the tour, and the tour's website is just a forum. Borderline for a speedy delete as a non-notable website, accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some quick Google sleuthing makes it painfully clear (if the article hadn't accomplished it already) that notability is absent.--Koji† 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Considering the proportionality of the 2008 StarCraft tournament, and the number of players participating in it (4k players), not to mention the article existing for a very long time now, it is notable. On a side note, please understand that Google searching is NOT used in debates anymore, just thought I should throw that out there for you Koji.--4.245.74.32 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.245.74.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Do not remove the AFD from the article and adding an hidden comment "As a result of the debate held in 2008, this article was kept with a consensus of 2 to 1. " is not tolerated. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Google searching is no longer a viable tool? That sounds like a rather major change to me, might someone link me to which policy this change has occurred under? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a sheer count of Google hits is not a valid rationale for keeping an article, the fact that a Google search was conducted and no hits were found would suggest that the subject cannot be verified. Of course, verification is a core guideline, and non-verifiability is a reason to delete an article. (At that point, IMHO, the burden is on the article's creators to provide sources.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I, too, cannot find any verifiable sources to establish notability of the tour; I get nothing but forums. It doesn't matter if the article has been hiding for years and someone just noticed now – that is not a reason to keep the article (neither is WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE). MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Recognized by Reenactor Entertainment, Blizzard Entertainment, and others.--4.245.73.195 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.245.73.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep - I'd like to apologize if the article I spent 2 hours making is not good enough for Wikipedia, several other people will come and make it better however.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroFanMission (talk • contribs)
• Delete. No notability asserted in article, nor found with a Google search. It's also pretty obvious that the above keep votes are forum-driven (and wrong, too - not using Google searches for AfDs? What?) Tan | 39 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. Unless you can say "We don't care about the customer." on the main page, I suggest you keep it.--4.245.21.242 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.245.21.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Save. I did not come from http://www.igtour.pro.tc/ but I learned about the IGT on another wiki and decided to look up more information on Wikipedia about it, if that designates any notability since other wikis have articles about it.--4.244.3.216 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All four IP addresses !voting above come from the same ISP - Level 3 Communications, Inc. out of Colorado. Their netrange is 4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255. Clear canvassing and/or forum advertising and/or socking. Tan | 39 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sink - unnotable (WP:N), unverifiable through reliable sources (Wp:V). I have literally no idea how saying "We don't care about the customer." on the main page is related to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for International Gaming Tour. (0.19 seconds)" -Google. CNET has a news article on the tour, so does Filefront & SS Free & Tech Republic & GameSpot and several other popular gaming news sites.--4.245.74.168 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.245.74.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: no independent sources available to verify notability. And the amount of "save" comments coming from an IP range that makes it obviously clear that they are from the same person is frankly becoming disruptive. -- Sabre (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, and really no content other than a table. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (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.