Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer List of Videogames

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 per WP:SNOW. howch e ng {chat} 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer List of Videogames

Non-notable per WP:WEB Garglebutt / (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Oh boy... This user is trying to legitimize his work on his already existing AfD on Video Game Museum (see the exchange after the dashed line). While I also support the keeping of VGM, KLOV (also home of the International Arcade Museum) is cited in far more legitimate circles than VGM, including The Onion A/V Club (cited every week in its "Games Of Our Lives" retro-game review section[1](see photo)) as well as many other print media sources. This little crusade of Garglebutt needs to end. Bobak 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a citation of KLOV from Newsweek, calling it "the IMDb for players" [2] Bobak 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puhlease! Don't try to guess my motives just because you disagree with me. At the very least the article needs to be expanded if the web site is indeed notable. I see Wikipedia becoming a collection point for POV web site reviews. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your motives are really honorable Gargebutt, but if you scheduled VGM and KLOV for deletion, why not mobygames? Does the look of the site inflict on your judgement about the site being notable? Because Mobygames looks more professional yes, but it's the worst one out of these 3. ReyVGM 12:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to guess your motives, Garglebutt, your edit history on this issue is all the proof any third party would need to see that you're unable to separate your personal issues with a person from your irresponsible lack of knowledge on the topics you've recently nominated for deletion. But don't just take my word for it, see below. Bobak 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable website. -- Krash (Talk) 02:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no justification for the article's deletion. Reycount 10:45, 28 February 2006
Strong Keep. Millions of visitors to this site monthly. [3] --Mmeinhart 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very important article for the arcade community. AyrtonSenna
Keep. I'm not an arcade enthusiast, but from what I've seen on the site, it looks like a solid reference. --E lkman - ^(talk) 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

(Revo 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy keep per the above.--み使い Mitsukai 05:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Alexa rank is only in the 50,000s, but the website seems to be the leading authority for an enthusiast community. Grandmasterka 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mention in Newsweek easily establishes notability. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discordance 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website. Nigelthefish 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ReyVGM 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very valuable resource, a decent chunk of Wikipedia's arcade info comes from KLOV. --Interiot 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The layout isn't so great, but the content is definately notable. Also KLOV has been around since the dawn of the interweb. --Flipkin 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Perfectly legit website and notable enough. --Krashlandon (e) 21:26, 1 March 2006 (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.