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. Notability concerns by delete commenters are not refuted by those in favor of keep. Sources provided are generally trivial, tangential, or otherwise not substantial enough to grant notability. lifebaka++ 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Murray[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Old Man Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy renomination, since previous AFD was closed as if it were a PROD and then challenged. Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Bottom line, yes. It's the standard we have here, for lack of a better. It doesn't have to be the news archive, it can be Google Books or other search engines. Or it can be reliable sources not found in any of those places, but cited in the article. Currently there aren't any. I did my best to find what Wikipedia requires, which is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, before I !voted "delete". Your numerous comments here have done nothing so far to change my mind; in fact you would change more minds if you would keep your comments less hostile. You obviously feel very strongly about this site, but if you want to keep its page on Wikipedia you simply have to come up with reliable sources to support your insistence that it is notable by Wikipedia's definition. If there are no such sources, then the article can't stay here, no matter how strongly you and your friends feel about it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I don't even feel strongly about the site, it just kind of amazes me to see people do a few no effort web searches and declare that they could find no references to the website, then to see those people ignore references when presented with them. The only complaint presented with anything anyone not from wikipedia has said is that they're not from wikipedia. Worm4Real (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to turn poncy font off. Sorry. But in my defense, you guys probably deleted that page, too. IceCreamJonsey (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God, no wonder you got a baccalaureate in public administration. You're as banal and thick headed as any government bureaucrat I've ever come across. Kade (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that you agree that ES and 173's keep votes ARE grounded in policy? If they abide with policy and prove notability in a manner that you can't contest or diminish then aren't any delete votes saying this article is WP:Not_notable sort of invalid? Worm4Real (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is marking people as SPA as a substitute for your inability to dispute facts a common practice? How much work do we have to do so you don't side with someone who has an obvious WP:COI? The issue isn't the writing of the article, if it was he wouldn't be asking for a deletion based on a lack of notability. Look at the posts by EntropyStew and 173.0.2.204 if they do not meet your reliability standards please reply to those posts. If they meet your reliability standards we would be happy to add them to the article once it's no longer on the edge of oblivion. The TOPIC is either notable or not, the state of the article is irrelevant. I don't need to be a wikiholic to know the difference between where you'd want a WP:CLEANUP and WP:DELETE. Thank you for your time. Worm4Real (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who writes article about a video game review site? I don't see Gamepro writing articles about Game Informer! The links I provided to the Edge magazine preview and RPS interview both refer to Chet and Erik as being even more noteworthy for their involvement in OMM than for the games they are being interviewed about. If those references aren't smoking guns, if quoting the mainstream video game media about the notability of a video game media site is not enough, then your notability criteria are broken and you should delete the article. Don't stop there, though! Keep going! Entropy Stew (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, here's is an interview about Old Man Murray which comes from the links section of Erik's wikipedia page. I doubt it's usable as a reference since ripping quotes from popular videogame magazines doesn't seem to count for anything. Entropy Stew (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a direct response to me? Essentially you're saying any references posted here are invalid because they are not direct articles about the website? Oddly looking at similar articles about similar websites I cannot find what you're asking for provided for them, does OMM require special proof? We both know it's something that simply doesn't happen but it's being propped up because Schumin wants the article deleted because of a personal quarrel with Portal of Evil. He has an obvious and documented WP:COI, if needed I can get any relevant information in regard to that reposted to another site.
I really see nothing but Schumin quoting a piece of policy at anyone he can and simply ignoring anyone with a valid point. I personally had to extract a complaint about the references posted from you, were they simply going to be ignored until deletion? Don't you have a duty to inform people if the proof they're offering up isn't good enough? Why do I have to directly engage you to get constructive responses to information posted where Schumin floats around the discussion only replying to whatever he can flat out disregard? Worm4Real (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try one more time to explain about Wikipedia's need for reliable, published sources. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the provided links meet those criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear about the word "published"? From the same Wikipedia link you just quoted, "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." I did note, in my original comment here, two items from Wired magazine which is a Reliable Source, but the items did not provide significant coverage about the website itself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's time to delete the Kotaku Wikipedia article too.
Here are some sources. Considering the subject matter, there is not going to be any academic journals or wire articles.
Category One, material from Old Man Murray contributing to video game design. First, the creation of the Start-to-Crate metric (first published on Old Man Murray) and used by others in the popular press:
I believe that Wired's reliability is reasonable. It currently has over 8000 citations on wikipedia.
  • 2 references from tvtropes.org
    • CrateExpectations, which directly links the Start-to-Crate measurement on Old Man Murray, listing the site as the originator.
    • OldManMurray, a tertiary source documenting the website's other contributions.
  • 1 review from yougamers, referencing Old Man Murray's Start-to-Crate metric. Seven years after initial publication.
  • 1 retrospective of the Doom franchise, using the Start-to-Crate metric.
  • 1 overview of 31 different games using the Start-to-Crate metric. Nine years after initial publication.
  • 1 reference in joystiq discussing Old Man Murray's contributions to video game design theory
  • 1 review of Dead Space, mentioning the Start-to-Crate metric. Ten years after initial publication.
and altogether, 18 links from external websites to the Old Man Murray 'Start-to-Crate' article (WP:SOURCESEARCH), including a 2008 article in French.
  • 1 irrelevent article about meta-blogging, yet to root the premise of the piece with a description of the Start-to-Crate metric. Six years after initial publication.
  • An unreferenced website devoted entirely to documenting crates (and barrels) found in video games.
  • An animation student referencing the Start-to-Crate metric for a thesis project.
What else is Old Man Murray notable for?
  • 1 retrospective from escapist, citing an older Old Man Murray work on the same topic.
  • 1 article on adventuregamers discussing the dearth of adventure games coming to market, citing the same Old Man Murray source.
  • 1 rebuttal to the Old Man Murray article on the decline of adventure games.
  • 1 interview with the fictional persona of Old Man Murray.
  • 1 review of the Old Man Murray site itself, from back when people still wrote reviews of websites on other websites.
Category Two, documenting the Old Man Murray phase of award-winning video game professionals. Would there be an entry for Walden if not for Thoreau? Auvers-sur-Oise without the painters who lived there? (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
  • 15 additional trivial references from Wired, which consistently identify Chet Faliszek and/or Erik Wolpaw with Old Man Murray.
  • 1 interview at rockpapershotgun, rating Wolpaw's contributions to Old Man Murray as more memorable than his award-winning work in video games.
  • Erik Wolpaw's own biography had a cross-link to this article. There are only seven facts listed in the biography; his association with Old Man Murray included.
Category Ugh, material from Old Man Murray contributing to misogyny.
  • 1 reference on encyclopediadramatica which is disgusting. I recommend not looking at it.

Iglotl (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Wired.com, owned by Conde Nast has 15 editors.
  • tvtropes.org is a moderated wiki project.
  • yougamers, owned by Futuremark Productions has two editors.
  • doomworld, part of 1up.com, currently owned by UGO Entertainment (employs only 39 people; I found three editoral staff listed on LinkedIn). At the time of article publication was owned by Ziff Davis Media, which currently has 8 editors on staff.
  • the Escapist, owned by Themis Group has at least three editors.
  • flak magazine (now defunct), independently operated had 8 editors.
  • Kotaku, owned by Gawker Media, has 5 editors

Iglotl (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Yeah arguments count and your arguments are kind of diminished when you go putting strike out tags on votes you don't like, doesn't really seem like something someone would do in good faith. If you are officially annulling a vote by a blocked account you might want to put that in your edit reason rather than "striking keep by 'new' account". Worm4Real (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your edits show you to be nothing more than a single-purpose account/meatpuppet, I feel no compelling urge to explain myself to you. HalfShadow 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny in WP:GD it says it's up to the closing admin to decide whether a vote should be ignored or not, nothing about putting strike-through tags around it. Though I guess because you're not a SPA you must be right. Worm4Real (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interogative - Would you please share that two sentence summary with the class? 76.67.98.250 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 76.67.98.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Something like "Old Man Murray is a gaming humour website established by Chet Faliszek[1] and Erik Wolpaw.[2] The start-to-crate metric for reviewing games originated from one of Wolpaw's Old Man Murray articles.[3]" - again, I might be missing a key piece of significant coverage from a reliable source that can expand on this and will be happy to be corrected. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been established that UGO is a reliable source, and that OMM was a UGO partner, and their content reviewed by UGO staff. I am happy to re-do the citations of the entire article to be that of OMM itself. But we both know that would be a bit silly. Similarly, reading everything discussed on this page, all the exchanges that have taken place and awkwardly trying to distill it to the two sentences you provided is also very silly. 67.247.167.15 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I was puzzled by that one, too... Peridon (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. As a total outsider, the bickering in this Afd combined with the poor quality of references in the article gives the impression of a small group of fans claiming notability of "their" website while being ignored by any larger community. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To put this in perspective, you were run off of Portal Of Evil (a site created and hosted by the same people who created Old Man Murray) for being a creepy waterheaded pervert. Oh but let's not mention your history with the site because you're trying to be impartial. Much like Schumin, you are establishing Wikipedia as an environment where stunted manchildren can finally get revenge on those who bullied them without consequence. You two belong together. 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of the place. What little I saw of it, it involved "people" (and I use the term loosely) making fun of sites and calling each other fags. It's deletion was one of the best things to happen to the internet. HalfShadow 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ORLY You never heard of it... but you saw a little of it? And it's good it was deleted? Even though you never heard of it? You do realize that you're contradicting yourself in the space of three sentences? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the fact that it's been up for deletion at least twice, which is how I saw it. I'm happy the second one sticked. Y'know, you get your foot any further down your throat, gag reflex is likely to kick in. HalfShadow 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting something based upon its existence in that bygone era called "the past" is flat out stupid to begin with. That said, OMM is still being referred to as "legendary" in print 9 years after it stopped updating, and still has a pagerank of 5 because it's referenced by prominent game media and game dev sites. Entropy Stew (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • HalfShadow raises a good point. The Roman Empire fell over 1000 years ago. Why are we still talking about it? There's a lot of clutter we can delete on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.20.108 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 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.
Category