Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGMaps (3rd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VGMaps

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

After some dramatic activity by PeterAmbrosia with the previous AfDs, it would be beneficial to get a new take for this as I found nothing better than a few links at Books, News and browser. Pinging past users MuZemike, Hellknowz, JamesBWatson, Hell in a Bucket, Theroadislong, Salvidrim and Mark viking. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and the citations currently in the article are either not in-depth nor not secondary, reliable sources (Mark's comment in the last AfD got it right). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 06:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable coverage, fails GNG.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have procedurally reformatted this vote, as it was formatted incorrectly. --TL22 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a useful resource, but it hasn't gotten coverage in reliable sources. Too bad we don't have a place we can merge this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to agree with the rest that the current sources do not constitute significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, despite there being several. I don't see any new sources since last AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:17, 10 October 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.