Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplanet (New Zealand)

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. Sandstein 08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplanet (New Zealand)

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

The article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Couldn't find any in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. GamerPro64 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per GamerPro64. Gameplanet.co.nz has a worldwide Alexa rank of 503,750 (not that's an indicator, but it's no wonder it isn't notable). --Soetermans. T / C 12:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no a good article and needs significant work, but in terms of the NZ market they are significant. A quick search pulled up most of the major NZ media outlets covering them. NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples? GamerPro64 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See NinjaRobotPirate below - I do agree with him that many are press releases by GamePlanet, never the less the two main press outlets in NZ, Stuff and the NZ Herald have covered them as has at least one TV networkTV3. I have not checked their coverage in local PC or gaming magazines, but they seem reasonably well represented on gaming sites here. They are mentioned on the NZ PC World site NealeFamily (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its content is syndicated at Stuff.co.nz (for example, this article) and the New Zealand Herald (example), and there's this award, but there's very little in-depth coverage that I can see. This article is kind of about it, and this article is a brief announcement. It's tough to say whether this adds up to significant coverage. I'm not sure I see this alleged coverage all major NZ media, but there's some. I can source some of the awards to Scoop.co.nz, but they're verbatim press releases, which aren't really able to show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neale Family. James500 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NRP's sources, which appear to be the best we can do, are together insufficient for writing an in-depth account of the website. The article topic—the website itself and not just citations of its coverage—lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by NealeFamily and NinjaRobotPirate are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. For example, this article in Stuff.co.nz discusses the subject directly and in detail. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 7 March 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.