Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games Fleadh (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Games Fleadh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is not notable. It has not received significant coverage. Google books turns up no results relating to the event (apart from a single mention where an author thanks the organisers). The only reliable source in the article is an Irish Times link, which is now dead. A Google news search turns up only a handful of local articles and blog posts which list winners rather than thoroughly covering the event/competition itself. This can be seen in the article itself, as the most well-sourced section is the winners list. However, most of these sources are merely press releases by the colleges who won - these are obviously biased sources and not acceptable.

The entire rest of the article is has only three sources. Two of these are the event's website, and one is the aforementioned Irish Times deadlink.

As it stands, this event has received no international coverage, coverage by only one national newspaper (once, six years ago), and some very limited local and blog coverage which merely lists winners. Actual details about the event, structure, organisation, etc. is nonexistent. This hardly qualifies it for an article.

At the moment, it reads more like a (poorly written) advertisement (e.g. "Another Highlight of Games Fleadh, is GamesPro. GamesPro, is a panel of games and software developers, and companies, highly respected in industry" and "Every year Games Fleadh is supported by (but not limited to): Microsoft,EA, Demonware"). Klock101 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article reads like a promotional piece for both itself and other companies. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree that this is poorly written(By myself). Content can be edited to be made read less of an advertisement. Article has informational content for a national audience. (FYI, I no longer have connection with this event)  - Lynch3001 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that you had a connection with the event is a clear conflict of interest. You should not have created this article in the first place, and should probably recuse yourself from this debate - you're almost certainly biased, and your edit history suggests that you're a single purpose account.
 * If this event was noteworthy, someone other than someone connected with it would have made the article for it. My deletion nomination has nothing to do with the poor writing, that was just an addendum; the fact remains that there has not been significant coverage for this event, therefore it is currently impossible for this article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The "informational content for a national audience" should be on the event's website, not Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a directory or a means of promotion. Klock101 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I did some major cleanup on the article, merging a bunch of unneeded sections together and fixing some of the POV content. It still needs work, but I think there is just barely enough sourcing available to meet the notability guidelines. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Unfortunately, I still disagree about there being enough sources to meet notability guidelines for an article. For example, the entire History section (which is the only particularly encyclopedic section of the article) has no sources whatsoever. The rest of the article is just a series of bulleted lists listing themes/winners, and again, are all sparsely referenced. The quality of some sources is still questionable (e.g. [5], [6], [7], and [9] were either published by the event itself or are self-promotional fluff pieces written by the winning colleges). An alternative to deletion may instead be a redirect to Limerick Institute of Technology, where a short section about the event could be included using the small handful of reliable sources that do exist. Klock101 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.