Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamesauce

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesauce

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

Non-notable magazine lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if it seems to fail the Google Test, this is notable. Gamesauce has received press in the IGDA newsletter here, as well as some scattered press about it's conference - held in conjunction with Casual Connect in Seattle. The magazine's articles are cited by other, reliable sources as a source (which implies notability as per WP:MAGAZINE). I found examples of this for one particular article here: industrygamers.com, Shacknews, kotaku, eurogamer. -Addionne (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable in its field. Article would be of interest to some people. -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please consider keeping this article. Our coverage of the industry has received notable press coverage and attention by both the game press as the game industry. We did a cover article on John Romero in our last issue that was quoted and cited by a different rage game news sites, which I hope has also shown our legitimacy and reliability as a professional source of information on the game industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgvisionary (talk • contribs) — Vgvisionary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep – Looks like the sources provided sufficiently establish notability here. –MuZemike 07:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A quarterly trade magazine that is less than a year old? I am not so sure. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (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.