Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manomio


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Manomio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - I had never heard of them personally, but they do seem to get coverage in reliable, third party sources...
 * Endgadget
 * Pocketgamer x2
 * Eurogamer Sergecross73   msg me   03:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources presented by Sergecross73 suggest that it is possible to build an article about this company. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This a neglected article that is wating for a competent editor to add cites. Manomio as a topic passes WP:CORP.patsw (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources have been integrated into the article, and a bunch of the unsourced stuff was removed. Still pretty rough, but I think it's enough to pass the WP:GNG now though. Sergecross73   msg me   18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If not deleted, the article should be made a stub. However, that is only on quantnity: I have seen longer articles with five sources. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that being that the references largely cover the same string of 3 incidents. I have found more references that I will work in to the article so it is a bit more comprehensive, but I believe that the sourcing the page has right now is enough.  Clay  Clay  Clay  23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See my comment above.  Clay  Clay  Clay  23:48, 31 January 2012 (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.