Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's over gaming

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. NW (Talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's over gaming

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

~~Just a unfinished list of games except with a bunch of references. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)~~User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If above can be proven or happened already (a diff from an admin discussion or checkuser I'd assume), the original would meet CSD-G5. I don't see anything as of now. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to decide if the creator(s) of the article are trying to create a list or a forum. Perhaps someone typed up their notes without thinking. At the moment hard to say if this is anything or nothing. Definitely tells you little about the subject of the article. Maybe this is all there is to tell.... Peridon (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really anything, the fact is the page was made to better document the Gaming Community "iO Gaming / It's Over Gaming", there is little to no purpose for the page besides pure advertising. I support the deletion of this page as both a Wikipedia User and an [iO] Gaming community "Member". Additionally our Management (CEO) has expressed that he would like to see the page be removed | Source Here 24.150.72.6 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have concerns over notability. On the talk page, the author admits: "There is one problem that I probably can't evade very well and it's that iO is not a very well known community ...". Add to that the sourcing that appears to rely very heavily on the organisation's own forum, makes me suspect it is not sufficiently notable fir inclusion in the encyclopedia. Astronaut (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this suffices[1] as evidence. Self-admission of it being a G11 article puts this way up there on the list of "most obvious ever". ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria G11 or A7. Their number of registered members is not an indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 30 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.