Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EGames.com

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 delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EGames.com[edit]

EGames.com (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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Non-notable company. Topic lacks significant coverage form reliable secondary sources. None of the sources currently used on the article contribute to the topic's notability. The first is a user-generated database entry, the second is a self-published blog, the third is a pr piece from the company itself. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, no coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. Also the name of the author suggest that it may be an auto-promotional article written with a WP:COI. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 3 October 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.