Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polycount

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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polycount (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)

Promotioanl and non-notable -- see inforbox DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article some, doing partnered contests with the 1st and 3rd most played online PC games seems noteworthy to me. ^[1] Polypunk (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the following sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep another lazy and unhelpful AfD rationale, I'm afraid. I suppose the comment refers to the (non-removed) mission statement in the infobox - hardly a sufficient reason for deletion. The RS coverage clearly exists: a simple Google news search reveals 286 hits for "Polycount art" and 320 for "Polycount forum". A lot are incidental mentions, but the mere fact that RS have referred their readers to something on the site hundreds of time is far from meaningless - non-notable websites are not routinely referenced in RS. The in depth coverage of the site and/or its contests found in some of those RS (such as thus links provided by Sam Walton) prove notability beyond a doubt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Shacknews, Kotaku, and PCGamer are all good, but the other sources are either first-party or unreliable. In addition, I found another PCGamer source (only this one simply talks about the Polycount Pack, never mentioning the group specifically), this from Gamasutra (some good information on the success of their mods for TF2), and this from Russian IGN (I doubt it's got anything in there, the DuckDuckGo description used "MessageBoard" in it, but if anyone knows Russian, it'd be great to know for sure). With the three aforementioned good sources in the article, we have a solid history of the project, an editorial about fan-made League of Legends art that says that Polycount was part of hosting the contest, and an article about how much was paid to the creators of the Polycount Pack. Definitely enough to work with, even though there's a lot of stuff cited to unreliable sites. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A news search reveals multiple mentions of the site, including several in PC Gamer magazine. I am genuinely shocked that such a well respected editor and admin with a strong track record as DGG would file a confusing AfD with several typos which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I am concerned his account might have been compromised. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 17 February 2015 (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.