Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polygon (website)

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 redirect to Vox Media. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon (website)

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

Nothing but sourcing from the company owner (The Verge (website)) and a staff directory here: no proof of notability provided. Sources found through Gnews have something in common: The Verge. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Verge (website), and possibly add a subsection regarding Polygon once it is an established subsidiary of its parent site. From the lead section of the article (emphasis added to words denoting future tense):

"Polygon is an upcoming American video game news and media network operated by Vox Media. The network will be managed by its editor in chief Christopher Grant and Vox Media's chief content officer Marty Moe. The publication will compete with similar video game news websites such as Joystiq, Kotaku, Destructoid, 1UP.com, and IGN."

In other words, it has not yet launched. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, an expected future event "should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Obviously, the launch of this website is almost certain to take place according to its creators. The real debate here, then, is one of notability. Is the website in its current iteration notable? That is debatable. Polygon has become a significant part of the video games journalism space--even though it has not yet launched--through the content it has published in partnership with The Verge. (In this respect, I believe Kurtis misunderstands Polygon′s intended future. It is not a subsidiary of The Verge; it is a subsidiary of Vox Media, which makes it a sibling of The Verge. It--if its creators' future plans come to fruition--will be its own, separate website at www.polygon.com.) When Polygon launches, will it be notable in its own regard? I, of course, cannot know that; however, since it will be a sibling of The Verge, I can guess that its notability will be comparable to that of The Verge, whose article (The Verge (website)) is detailed and extensive. Therefore, the real question becomes "Should we tear down this article now only to rebuild it sometime in the next four months (as the website is intended to launch in "2012")?" My answer would be "No." It is difficult for me to find any merit in destroying an article such as this--which, admittedly, could use a considerable deal of work--only to resurrect it later. DillonLarson (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After giving myself a moment to think this through more thoroughly, I believe my argument--while not incorrect or misled--was fueled by my passion for the subject, not my desire (which is very great) to maintain Wikipedia's standards of notability. I recognize that the integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than whatever goals I may personally have for its contents. Therefore, I believe the best road forward would be to redirect Polygon (website) to Vox Media. (I still disagree with Kurtis; information about Polygon should probably go on Vox Media, not The Verge (website).) DillonLarson (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (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.