Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ai sponge

Ai sponge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this has very lasting notability - multiple of the sources used are listed as unreliable on WP:VGRS and WP:RS/PS.

In particular:

• Dexerto is noted as a "tabloid publication" on VGRS
• TheGamer is noted as a "situational source" on VGRS (see: WP:VALNET)
• Cracked.com is noted as "generally unreliable" on RS/PS
• Medium is a self-published source (see: WP:MEDIUM)

The news coverage of this was also very brief, as no reliable source exists for the discontinuation of the livestream, as well as a lack of reliable sources for Uberduck in general. Also note that the article's creator has been blocked for edit warring. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Technology, and Internet. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's mentioned in some RS in the article, but it's not about this sponge thing... I can only find mentions of an AI Sponge rehydrated, which seems to be version two of this thing. I don't see enough coverage to keep this, nor is what's in the article of much help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait: If you can wait on this action, in the coming days I want to do one last thorough source check to see if this article can be saved. If not, the best course of action would probably be to delete. Cheers! Johnson524 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below. Cheers! Johnson524 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AfDs are generally up for about 7 days (if they aren't extended due to a lack of consensus to delete/merge/etc.). You have time. wizzito | say hello! 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clickbait and unreliable sourcing, Wikipedia is not for everything memey that appears on the Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DraftLet the editors replace the unreliable with the reliable sources it may take a few weeks or months but we Wikipedians can do it. ThatAustralianBall on YT

05:21 PM, 3 December 2024 (AEDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatAustralianBall (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: OK, I've done a complete rewrite of the article from scratch, removing all uncited information. The troublesome sources listed above (Cracked.com and Medium) never mentioned ai_sponge once, so were removed. Here's a breakdown of all the sources now used alphabetically, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources:

  Dextero: Is listed as a situational source, with no defense otherwise. Since its not considered completely unreliable, however, it is used sparingly

  Dot Esports: Is considered reliable

  TheGamer: Is listed as a situational source, but states "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable", which this is

  The Mary Sue: Is listed as a situational source, but states "Original reporting is reliable" which this is, denoted by the tag on the top of the page that says "news" rather than "blog"

The rest are not listed, this WikiProject video games, but are used for the following reasons:

  Dataconomy: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author

  eBaum's World: Does not state to be a blog and has a credited author, but the author uses a sudonym, rather than a real name. The website has a Wikipedia article, but is still used sparingly out of caution.

  Global Village Space: Does not state to be a blog, but does not have a credited author "News Desk". Used sparingly.

  IndieWire: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author, and a Wikipedia page

  LevelUp: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author

Any sources considered unreliable (like these Medium, Sportskeeda, and Toolify ones) are not used, with the possible exception of a screenshot announcing the channel's end as a back up citation, in a note, in the infobox, which I am happy to remove if deemed necessary. If you believe any of the sources listed above should be reconsidered as unreliable, I can remove them from the page. This was a very comprehensive search for sources, and I have done all I can do for the page at this point. I believe the sources used establish the article's notability, but if you believe they do not, I'm happy to discuss further. Cheers! Johnson524 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnson524's significant repair of the article and addition of new sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Global Village Space is definitely unreliable per sources listed in this discussion. The Wikipedia article for eBaum's World notes "Content is primarily user submitted in exchange for points through a monetary point system" so probably also unreliable. Not sure about Dataconomy or LevelUp either but them not being blogs is not enough to declare reliable. The other sources seem ok but not much sustained coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shapeyness Good find on the Global Village Space source! It has been removed from the page. I'm still hesitant to the removing the eBaum source all together but I'll see what others say. Cheers! Johnson524 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]