Talk:Gamers Outreach Foundation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (2 participants)
The Campaign Trail (Web Game) (23 participants)
Paper doll (video games) (5 participants)
TheoTown (10 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
WePlay AniMajor (2 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

So...why does the controversy section keep getting deleted?

Seriously, I wanna know as well...I've been watching (and occasionally participating) in this for a bit now, and I don't understand why this keeps getting cleared. Seems like GoF has folks burying their dirty laundry for them. The thing is cited (hell, they even used the numbers hosted at my site for a citation) and is accurate. The veracity isn't even being disputed.

So why does it keep getting dumped?

Jer l (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is an excel spreadsheet. If all it is used for is to quote the numbers then fair enough, but the conclusions drawn are an extrapolation, which constitutes original research. If there are reliable sources to back up what this section is saying, then it wouldn't be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The controversy section is based almost entirely on original research and a synthesis of published material that advances the position of the author. Even the term "published material" could be considered generous, considering the only 'published material' dealing with finances in this article is the organization's Form 990. The section should be removed. AwenMaster

---

The claims in the funding section that have been removed are the same unfounded extrapolations that were made in earlier edits. Simply put, the BBB reference is not pertinent to the inferences made about the organization. Presumably, the “financial concerns” the editor is alluding to are the same claims based on original research, which were removed earlier from the article by Wikipedia. AwenMaster

---

The claims in the funding section are made by a 3rd party, which only provides facts, and not opinions. Please see the files for yourself if you feel they are not. It is not opinion when the documents are also provided. Jericshow

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Gamers Outreach Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]