Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On-Line Gamers Anonymous

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 delete. Sandstein 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On-Line Gamers Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't seems to have sufficient notability for the organization's inclusion as an independent article in wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep not much of use has been added since the article has been created. Mostly, I think, because people are addicted to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter so they're spending less time on Wikipedia (that's a bit of a joke)... If you check in Google Scholar and Google Books, there is some coverage, even newer coverage, that could be used to cobble this together and make it look more WP:N. I'm a bit ambivalent about it. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the nearly two decades since her son's death, Liz Woolley has received more press than the organization itself (although mainly from interviews), yet both individuals collectively have never had anything more on Wikipedia than a one-sentence mention on EverQuest. OLGA itself has had next to no independent third-party coverage and the article has consequently remained a stub since its 2008 creation while still reading like an advertisement. Sourcing as a whole therein is dubious at best; six (of eleven) citations are from the company website, no trace of the London Free Press article is online, and CyberSightings is just a brief passage and contact info. GScholar and GBooks bring up other passing mentions in journals/reference guides with no in-depth content. Only the Maclean's article goes into any serious detail about OLGA's history, but that's not enough to pass WP:NCORP. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per sixty nine. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:27, 1 February 2020 (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.