Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XGenStudios

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. GRBerry 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XGenStudios

Non-Notable website. Fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. Also, references are the domain's whois data (That's a new one....), and, a forum thread. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article has to rely on a thread from its own forums for sourcing, that's a baaad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an ad to me. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now — Part of the problem is it is something a "cult" website. Most of the editors (including me) are/are probably XGen regulars. However, what else is there to cite other than the forums? It's evidence that the game exists. I've removed some of the unverified stuff. I say we delete Stick Arena: Go Ballistick!. What isn't advertising there is specualation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Anotherpongo 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for most editors, but yes, I am an XGen regular. Due to this, and as I think that the site is notable, but only because I know lots of people who use it and not because reliable third-parties have talked about it, I'm abstaining from the discussion. But while keeping the main article is questionable, I don't think any individual game (with the possible-but-unlikely-exception of Defend Your Castle) has sufficient notability. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what part of WP:CORP or WP:WEB is this supposed to meet? It has the same amount of 3rd party coverage as my local Chinese restaurant whose menu is on the web but doesn't have a WP article - and doesn't merit one despite the fact that lots of people rave about their General Cho's chicken. Yes, just a cadre of insiders like it but hasn't been covered significantly by reliable 3rd party's - just like my restaurant. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 24 September 2007 (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.