Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGamer

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer (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 pass WP:WEB. Google News search shows only press-releases which don't establish notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Wow (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they appear to publishing more than press releases so I am not sure it qualifies. Lets try to get some more sources onto this article. Starspotter (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete We need more sources on this page and it is not really notable enough. Ivor Browning (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would prefer to keep the article, I read news on the website every so often, it's pretty well known in the industry. I am surprised this article isn't better than this, but at the moment GNG is really weak. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Lets try to get some more sources onto this article" is not a valid rationale or grounded in policy or guidelines on Wikipedia. Like Govvy has said (and is pretty much a Delete argument, rather than a Keep one), the subject fails WP:GNG because it lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and that is what matters, not whether we think it's well known or not (for example Hardcore Gamer and GameZone both got deleted but are often used as references for video game article). References in the article represent press releases in Valdosta and Financial Post, with listings on 1 other websites and a primary references to Valnet and the website itself (with passing mention to be found in searches). Sadly the website isn't notable for Wikipedia standards, at least not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was "Google News search shows only press-releases", which was I think not the case. There does seem to be some secondary sources, which I added in a brief search. It might better to merge or move this Valnet, Inc. or something similar, as they have some other properties that are Wikipedia. Edit, there was also a yahoo reference but maybe merge is better, I agree this is not a well known site. Starspotter (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to meet the requirements for notability, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simple case of failing the WP:GNG. This debate is probably only still active because of low participation, as neither Keep !vote are anywhere near a valid rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB. "I rather like it" is not an argument. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2019 (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.