Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameKing

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameKing

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

This dosn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. All the current refs seem dead, I couldn't find any news source on the product. The Chinese website for the company no longer exists. It just seems like a cheap clone toy product lacking coverage. Coasttocoast (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1] has some information, as does [2]. [3] is probably reliable. There is also a brief entry [4] in a book. [5] and [6] are likely reliable. I think there is enough for an article. Oh, [7] is certainly not reliable, but wow, someone had fun with that. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd question the reliability of those first three links, too. Your fourth link, Webster's Facts and Phrases, actually cites Wikipedia for the information, so we can't use that. The pelikonepeijoonit exhibit might be usable as verification, depending on how notable it is, but its coverage isn't exactly significant. Therefore I'm leaning towards delete. As an aside, I enjoyed Doctor Ashen's review of this console [8] (I'm not suggesting that as source material) Marasmusine (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify your issue with the first 3? I believe each site had a staff and wasn't self-published. Is there something else wrong with them? Hobit (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks like I can achieve the same kind of site by getting a bunch of my friends and calling ourselves "editorial staff", then I need to see somthing more. Sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This might be the presence of a notable staff writer, referrals from other established publications, or I'd settle for the concensus of the WP:VG community. I'm willing to change my !vote if this can be shown for insertcredit.com, consoledatabase.com or GBAX.com. Marasmusine (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I tend to assume any source that has an editorial board is reliable until shown otherwise. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some google news hits (not all are relevant but a lot are). I understand the noms concern about it being a "clone toy" however many of these are gaining notability in their own right, especially in niches such as the retro scene UltraMagnus^speak 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you pick out two from that list that represent "significant coverage"? Marasmusine (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - [9] [10]--UltraMagnus^speak 12:12, 16 October 2009 (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.