Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AusGamers

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 no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusGamers[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Most substantial article was this single one about the relaunch: [1] but nothing else. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here suggests a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't been able to find much, but I found this: [2] from PC World and [3] from The Sydney Morning Herald. If I can bear the thought of searching through more mountains of crap results, I'll continue looking later. It doesn't look like there's anything seriously in-depth, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this extensive passage about AusGamers in the book Virtual Nation: The Internet in Australia. This site also reviews the site and analyses the legitimately of its content.[4] --Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book has some good background, but that website has nothing to do with content quality as much as web safety—it's an automated report that it spits out about every website on the Internet, so it does nothing for notability. czar 18:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article requires significant work, however AusGamers appears notable. Aeonx (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is coverage by other sites as seen here. Kansiime (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory look at the HighBeam search results shows that the hits are either simple press releases or URLs—neither of which discuss the topic of AusGamers in any detail. czar 02:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for third time per this request by Czar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had thoughts about taking this to AfD as I couldn't find enough information about it for it to considered notable here. GamerPro64 21:35, 27 January 2016 (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.