Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResetEra[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Aside from notes detailing that the site is an offshoot of NeoGAF, I don't see how this meets any of the Notibility guidelines such as WP:GNG. At least one of the references isn't valid (coming from their own official twitter account). Either a deletion or a redirect and information to be moved to the NeoGAF article would be more appropriate. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are four independent sources, three of them of reasonable length, which amounts to significant coverage, and since the sources explicitly state that it is not the same forum as NeoGAF it would make sense to redirect the title there. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern is more that the articles seem to be more about NeoGaf and the controversy on that site, rather than ResetEra outside of 'This is now a thing' which in turn fails significant coverage on ResetEra's part and fits more alongside NeoGafs coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quickly doublechecked the sources. Polygon's article is almost entirely about NeoGAF as is GameRevolution. Gamechup's article is minor and isn't notable enough and USgamer's article again alternates between NeoGAF news and a twitter press release. None of which fits significant coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not discuss the subject in sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage. WP:WHYN explains that signifcant coverage is coverage that enables more than a few sentences to be written.--Pontificalibus 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant delete. The article needs improvement. I agree with User:Jamesbuc about most of the content being about how it originated. This needs to change if it is to stay. I'm reluctant to fully endorse the delete because NeoGAF has a fully fleshed out article, and from current Alexa statistics, it appears to be tanking and much less popular than ResetEra. So, I think the underlying entity itself is more noteworthy than NeoGAF. I think, if we leave this article alone, in a year or two, it may develop enough content to stand on its own right. However, this vote is for the article as it stands today, hence my vote to delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is just not enough sources covering the website itself to have it reach standards here. GamerPro64 04:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jamesbuc. Outside of those sources, I do not expect much else. Plus, forums are not as popular as they use to be. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per A really paranoid android. While this article has the potential to become more notable, sadly it currently just doesn't seem to clearly pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2019 (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.