User talk:GamingTrend

Sorry for delay in replying to your message - I will reply tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please create a new account with a username that represents only you. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may ask for a review of this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

I am sorry to do this to you, but it is a principle that an account must represent an individual, and so our username policy does not permit usernames which are the names of groups or organisations. You can apply at WP:CHU to change your username, but as you have only one edit on this account it would be simpler just to abandon it and register a new one.

In any case, you can still edit this user talk page, so we can still converse here, and I will "watch" it so that I know if you post here. If you register a new account, let me know here what it is. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I didn't realize. Once we get past our discussion I'll nuke this account and re-register properly. My apologies.

Reply to your message on your talk page

I'm not sure why you say that your competitor's readers have "come after" your page. In assessing these deletion discussions, the closing administrator is well able to tell which contributors are "single purpose accounts" here only to try to influence a particular debate; and in this case the only two SPAs were the two IP addresses defending your page, rather uncivilly. The nominator and other contributors are all established editors (by which I mean only that they have been contributing for some time and on various subjects, not that they have any superior status), and the consensus of the discussion was quite clear.

If you want to challenge the deletion decision, you have taken the right first step, which is to talk to me as the admin who closed the discussion; but I see no reason to change my decision. The next step, if you wish, is WP:Deletion review, which is rather like a legal appeal - not meant for continuing the discussion but for arguing that it was wrongly closed. I think that is unlikely to succeed, but I will help you list the case at DRV if you wish.

The alternative is to try to introduce a new article. As a previous one has been deleted at AfD, any new one would have to demonstrate that it was not "substantially identical" to the deleted one, and addressed the reasons for the previous deletion. There is an issue here in that from our point of view you have a conflict of interest, and the best advice I can give you is the following (boilerplate text, I'm afraid, but I have this discussion fairly often):

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory or a vehicle for any kind of promotion. Articles have to be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article: the Wikipedia term for that is notability, and the requirements are explained in the guideline on Notability and in more detail in Notability (organizations and companies). Articles need to be verifiable from independent, reliable sources - a company's own website does not count as independent - and independent references are the best way to demonstrate notability. Also, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and so people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their own organizations, because of the conflict of interest involved. If you do write on such subjects, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you:

When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.

For more advice, read the FAQ/Organizations, in particular the sections headed:

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GT Entry

I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me regarding this issue. While I understand that this is a place to gather data in an encyclopedia format, the entry for Gaming Trend is no different than that of Gamespot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot) We helped take down Starforce copy protection, we were the first to give Madden 10 a legitimate review that started a firestorm at EA involving some very unprofessional conduct by their lead programmer Ian, I've been interviewed for several books along side of some of the biggest luminaries in the industry. I'll provide any proof of these statements that you'd like. If we are guilty of anything it's that we've not bragged enough to keep that page updated. That said, I do also recognize the conflict of interest in my pursuit of its reinstatement. The reason I say GiantBomb's readers have come out against the site is that you likely wouldn't have been even aware of the existence of our page with the exception of these bullets:

-- Delete The article's biggest claim of notability is that the site is listed on GameRankings and Metacritic, but that's not much of a claim at all. A Google search for the site name turns some of the site's pages, a ton of completely unrelated pages, and occasional repostings of their reviews on N4G. Nothing substantial Oh, and apparently they employ a reviewer who has no problem insulting other reviewers for having a different opinion on a game. If this site was actually notable, surely there would be some news and blog posts about that. But it appears that very few people noticed or cared. Reach Out to the Truth 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Delete No notability in terms of media coverage, hits, etc. Aggregator websites get as many sites as they can in order to look bigger. And yeah, this guy insults other reviewers. Crazysunshine (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally in our defense, we are what has risen from the ashes of notable site gonegold.com - the first site on the Internet that tracked release dates for PC Gamer magazine. As for being notable, we are covered by every notable review aggregation site on the net, and have been on the cover of several magazines this year - if you'd like to see the most recent example, flip over the most recent PCGamer magazine and check the ad for Torchlight. If you want another perspective, Alan Au (used to work for Wikipedia) is on staff and would be more than happy to speak in our defense.

Thanks for continuing the discussion - I appreciate you taking the time.

GamingTrend (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Ron Burke Director of Gaming Trend[reply]

Once again, my apologies for slow response; you on the other hand have no reason to apologise for your choice of username, because we do not do enough to make our rules clear in advance to new users.

You are advancing arguments why your organisation should be considered notable enough to have an article. The best advice I can give you is to point to the WP:FAQ/Organizations, particularly the section headed I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do? which suggests listing it at WP:Requested articles and/or preparing a draft in a user subpage. If you would like to do the latter, and set up a new account, I will if you think it would be helpful undelete the article and put it into a user subpage as a starting-point for you. Before you decide, please read again the advice further up this page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]