Talk:NeoGAF

Logo

Should be fixed, not sure what else was vandalized.

I'm not all that familiar with entering images here, but it looks like whoever last edited the forum's logo made it appear all cracked up with whatever change they made, at least in my browser. Any way to correct that? DarthWoo 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably have to change :

| logo = [[Image:Neogaf1.gif|right|300px|NeoGAF logo]]

to

| logo = [[Image:Neogaf1.gif|right|292px|NeoGAF logo]]

can't edit myself because of semi-protected status. Crypto178 06:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History section

I hope whoever wrote that part noticed the date of the referenced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.192.149 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An additional source?

[1] It doesn't contain a reliable source right away, but a watermark seems to be seen on the image, and shows Capcom quoting a message from NeoGAF. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article needs more references in general, but in particular to assert its notability. As a reminder from Wikipedia:Notability_(web), it needs to meet one of the following criteria.

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Richard Pinch (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a few sources, but I don't have time to add them right now, so if someone else could that would rock.

• [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
• And one of the best articles I've found to meet the "substantial coverage" requirement: [9].

This article needs to cover Dyack's strong reaction to the forum. He had become outraged by their dislike for Too Human, and began running interviews about how bad a forum NeoGAF is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

O/T forum

I don't think we need a section on the O/T forum, and especially not one the way it's written now. It is written as a howto on how you should behave on the forum, and not encyclopedic in tone. I removed the section again, and I would love to work on this, to see how we can fit it in. We need some secondary reliable sources on this one to make a good section out of it. Any hints would be appreciated! (linkdump: WP:TONE, WP:RS, WP:HOWTO, WP:NOT ) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

bias

This article needs to checked for bias129.115.2.90 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias & Viral Marketing

I've removed the text added repeatedly by one user relating to the above. The bias claim will need a reliable source from a major gaming site, rather than a niche blog that backs up the opinion of the editor, in order to justify the claim that this is the opinion of the "general gaming community". Viral marketing is not in and of itself a criticism of NeoGAF, since any user-driven site could be vulnerable; further, the referenced article shows the administrators were quick to inform the users of the community that they had banned the poster, and that they do not tolerate such behaviour. 62.56.61.170 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is not properly sourced. This adds a long criticism section. Most of the material is completely unsourced (interestingly there is a citation needed tag from February 2016 although I see no sign of this material having been in this article in February). The one source supplied is nothing but a blog posting and is not a WP:RS. Meters (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Site shut down

Apparently, the site has been shut down because the owner Tyler Malka, has been accused of sexual assault: [10] [11]. Probably should say something in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

site back online

site is opened again. someone revert the past tense of the article.KRISHANKO (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly why people need to calm down and not rush to change the tenses and status of the site as soon as it first goes down. Wikipedia is not a news site, we don't have to report breaking news immediately. We can afford to lag behind new sites a bit to wait for confirmation before declaring a site "dead". Bennv3771 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Malka has issued a statement saying that the rape accusation is false. Seems to have been a lot of high-profile false rape accusations over the past couple of years.

ResetEra redirect

@Darkknight2149: You have deleted the ResetEra article and recreated the redirect. I see that article was recreated without removing the merge template here etc. However the article was now substantial sourced and the you didn't even notify @Carolina Heart:. I think this would need a proper merger and a working anchor with section here. Considering restoring because of these factors. IgelRM (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: @Ckoerner: (We are up to the 3rd revert back and forward now) IgelRM (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no more energy to work on this. There's a weird stink on the subject matter and after going back in forth on the talk page with other folks, I'll just repeat what Carolina said. Oh god, what did I get myself into Ckoerner (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's my rationale:

1. The previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra (2nd nomination) still stands. It was the most recent discussion regarding ResetEra's notability and the consensus was that it wasn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. If we want to de-merge, we're going to have to have another discussion. Brute-forcing it goes against WP:CCC: "an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion."
2. Yes, there have been numerous edits since the attempted restoration a few months ago, but... the article is still in somewhat of a similar state. Don't get me wrong, it's better (it's no longer written like an advertisement and doesn't rely so much on primary sourcing), but there's still very little to say about ResetEra that can't be covered here. It's essentially "NeoGAF's owner was accused of sexual misconduct. Forum members started ResetEra. They banned a game once. They got bought in 2021. Sometimes game developers comment there." Very little to suggest ResetEra is a noteworthy topic by itself.
3. From my count, of the 12 references, almost half (five: #4, #5, #9, #11, and #12) aren't even about ResetEra. And I'd argue the ones that are are pretty weak; #2 and #3 are more about the split from NeoGAF than the site itself, while the Hogwarts Legacy discussion ban (#6 and #7) I would argue has more to do with Hogwarts Legacy than ResetEra. (Forums, including ResetEra ban discussions on specific topics all the time.) That leaves you with two references about the 2021 acquisition. The discussion and sources necessary to sustain a separate article just aren't there.

JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I had merged some details in the meantime. It looks like we are the only ones replying here, so probably best to focus on improving the article structure/merger.

Replying to above:

1. It indeed looks like Carolina Heart didn't engage in a discussion. But 3 people have now challenged the 2021 AFD, so I think it's valuable to have another discussion now.

2. Perhaps an indirect argument, but is NeoGAF that much more notable when going through the "essentially".

3. I see your point, but that's how we interpret the details (We should instead have an article on video game forums going by that.). While popularity doesn't make notability on the Internet, the ResetEra gets 7.7M visits according to Similarweb estimates. IgelRM (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)