Keep I'm the editor who tried to resuscitate this article. I'm hearing two main arguments. One is the weight in the article as it exists regarding the site's creation, the other about notability.
If we remove the references that are about the split (which is not what I suggest as the formation of the site was notable) we'd remove about nine citations. We'd still have 20 citations from mostly
WP:VG/RS, plenty for even the most entry-level stub, that discuss the impact this website has on the industry. Of course I'm going to argue the article should remain. :) Am I correct in understanding that is an option still? I've taken the opportunity to edit out large parts of the article that are in this vein - about the sites creation and unreferenced claims - as an example of
what it could look like if we decide it should remain (I'm leaving the Criticism section but I would agree that's weakly sourced. I don't want to appear to be trying something improper).
In that regard, a merge is less than ideal. While a discussion for another day, I feel it would be awkward to have the newer successor be a footnote to the now less popular progenitor. I know notability and RS restrict us here, but if it comes to that, and I truly hope it does not, I would rather, begrudgingly, recommend a deletion. To the nominator's comment about the culture wars, while we're not here to
right great wrongs, we shouldn't also kowtow to disruption or difficulty in our work here.
There is a sociopolitical element to the interest in this website that continues to stir up trouble I feel compelled to mention. Take a look at
the talk page,
recent reverted edits, and my
request to protect the page. Very
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know how organized this is, but there's a consistent pressure to delete this article, not out of upholding the principles of Wikipedia, but out of a strong bias and deeply unhealthy desire to see the site discredited. I don't know how much that weighs into the discussion here, but I feel like it's
an elephant worth mentioning. To be clear, I'm not accusing everyone who is commenting to delete/merge of this bias, but that it exists in a sizable amount of recent participation around this article.
Ckoerner (
talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
