Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gaming Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy keep. The nominator actually failed to provide an argument for deletion and questionable notability has been resolved with the addition of reliable sources here, numerous from just today at Google News, so it obviously passes requirements. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- American Gaming Association (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)
No sources, likely created by the source of the article or their associates. DegenFarang (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trout slap the above editor! This is the major gaming industry association in the US. Having an article without a large number of citations is not a reason to delete. Neither is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Ludicrous hounding nomination. 146 google news mentions today. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per 2005 and Vegaswikian above. Rray (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we stubify the article and remove all of the spam, I would be willing to change my vote to Keep. DegenFarang (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider editing and improving articles before sending them to Afd. Generally speaking, if an article can be improved, it isn't eligible for deletion. Rray (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Speedy Keep Nom is no longer arguing for deletion. Toohool (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate was never properly listed on the log. I have put it onto the current AFD log at 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (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.