StrategyWiki talk:Wikipedia Article

No mention of GameFAQS.com
I think it's really important that we severely reduce the number of references to GameFAQs.com, if not eliminate all of them entirely. Every time anything is ever mentioned about SW, there always something about GF, and I think all that's doing is giving them free publicity, as well as continuously associating ourselves as #2 even though we're trying to become #1. The obvious argument for mentioning it is that many gamers know what GF is, but do you really need to mention GF in order to explain to people that we host game guides? I'd like to see SW become more independent from the constant association to GF. Procyon 23:01, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * That makes sense, and the rewrite sounds better anyway. The reason why I wrote it that way was to try to satisfy the criteria for web notability (the article must demonstrate its notability, such as offering services different from those of its contemporaries) and reliable sources--a StrategyWiki article has been deleted before for lack of reliable sources (it was brief, and linked only to Joystiq). GarrettTalk 00:24, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 * We still only have one reference. Were getting very close to being one of the top 100k sites on the net (we were for a few days last month, then dropped again).  Judging by the deletion, seems like we need at least one or two more references. -- Prod (Talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (CST)