Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberscore

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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberscore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently recreated after PROD, so AfDing instead. Fails basic WP:GNG/WP:WEB -- no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I cannot find any coverage about the website except various mentions in forums. As per the article itself, the claim of notability "Cyberscore is the worlds largest video game scoreboard" is supported by an unreliable forum link with required registration and I cannot find any other source saying this. No other secondary sources are given. If this is really world's largest scoreboard, then in principle I'd like to see it kept and cleaned up, but I don't see any sources to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – recognizing that I’m biased, as a programmer of CS, I won’t be voting. However, I will try to answer the nominator’s point: “world’s largest video game scoreboard” could easily be confirmed by comparing its member count with its competitors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia probably considers this method original research. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does have an article for Twin Galaxies, which is smaller than CS in terms of members but is a lot better at getting publicity for itself, which is sadly what Wikipedia’s website notability criteria are based on. MTC (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and search for Twin Galaxies results in instant hits, whereas search on CyberScore does not. Afraid, CyberScore just hasn't received the same media attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't even need to invoke the notability guidelines. This topic can't be verified through a secondary source. There's nothing "sad" about it, that's just how tertiary sources are defined. Maybe one day a journalist will find Cyberscore worth writing about. Until then, we don't have an article on it. Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Almost all the cited "sources" are references to the subject's own web site (hence not independent). The other "source" is from a forum or blog (not generally reliable per WP:SPS). I couldn't find any other usable source in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources, all the references are to it's own website! Even the one external can not be salvaged into a ref, because it refs a forum post, so that's not a secondary source.Curb Chain (talk) 16:15, 9 August 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.