Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PG Games


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PG Games
Non-notable 'cpmpany' that fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Article smacks of non-encyclopaedic sarcasm, and has no real history of the organisation, or claims to notability. All editors who oppose the deletion are newly-created accounts. HawkerTyphoon 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's also the most unencyclopedic article I've seen in a long time. And perhaps the tag announcing to anons that an AfD is not a vote should be preemptively placed on this discussion? -- Kicking222 15:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a joke, right? Uucp 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merciful Zeus, Delete. -- Merope 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pleeeease?? ST47 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. Good call. Let's keep wikipedia clean. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' The user who created the article promised that there would be references added that would disprove the notion of the site being non-notable, and he or she has not done so. Lankybugger 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's a joke, it fails at that too. Danny Lilithborne 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scourge with fire and sow the page with salt. Then redirect to PD James to discourage recreation.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Which I did say I wouldn't have time for. It's been properly done. --Kafeithekeaton 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment With as many people clamouring for deletion as you've got here and with as few sources you have for the article (none which are truly notably and one which is criticism), if you'd like the article to remain I'd suggest taking a look at WP:WEB and WP:CORP and finding a criteria which can be fulfilled based on the information you've got. I was willing to hold off on the AfD discussion for now, but others clearly are not. If you get credible sources which verify under WP:WEB or WP:CORP, I'd be happy to change my position on this article. Lankybugger 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Bandai doesn't have any sources, and yet that article isn't deleted. You can't make the citation arguement.--Kafeithekeaton 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean Bandai, the 900+ employee multinational corporation? You're not honestly comparing these two, I hope. In any case, If you you are actually unconvinced of the verifiability of any claim in that article, tag it with . That some other article is undersourced does not preclude the use of Wikipedia policy WP:V as an argument for deletion in AfD. -- Scientizzle 23:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're construing my words. I'm saying that you can't use the lack of citations for an arguement because articles like Bandai lack it. Don't twist my words into something more.--Kafeithekeaton 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you wrote & meant. But it does not logically follow that because some article X is not fully cited one cannot argue that article Y needs to be cited to avoid deletion. I thought that was self-evident in my statement, but hopefully I've fully clarified. -- Scientizzle 05:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your words are your own. No-one desputes that Bandai isn't notable - we all, especially me, dispute that PG Games isn't. Please provide reliable, verifiable sources, per WP:CORP, WP:NOTE or WP:WEB!HawkerTyphoon 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If it can be ''happily' fitted into WEB or CORP, I'll happily withdraw the AfD, or change my vote, whichever is mosty helpful and legal HawkerTyphoon 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per all rationalized votes above. -- Kinu t /c  05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been added, and the aticle updated a lot. Hopefully making the article noteable. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glghko (talk • contribs).
 * Comment. I don't see any sources that meet WP's criteria for reliable sources. You've listed an interview with  a non-notable website, a list of games on another non-notable and related website, and a link to a message board on the same site.  All these do is prove that the games exist, which no one is disputing.  You need to establish notability.  -- Merope 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Sweet Jeebus! Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, despite the obvious best-selling potential for the "Drink Tea or Die!!!" game. --TeaDrinker 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I wish the company the best of success. Hopefully in a year or two they will be notable enough to be included but they aren't right now. JoshuaZ 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see whats wrong. How can the sources be wrong, they prove the existence clearly. What does it take for a site to be "notable", and I read the pages youve given, but how could i make it notable? what am I supposed to do? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glghko (talk • contribs) User's second recommendation.
 * The problem is not with the content of the article, but the subject. You cannot "make" it notable.  As it stands, the company has not received enough outside attention to warrant an article.  Perhaps later it might and the article can be recreated.  -- Merope 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, it's considered bad form to vote more than once especially when you're not signing your posts. That aside, we know it exists. Lots of other things exist which aren't on Wikipedia. Despite my good looks and charm, Wikipedia doesn't have an article dedicated to me. The sources aren't notable, which is the problem.
 * To put it into context, you've got a site here for PG Games. That proves nothing. Anybody with five dollars and a little patience can create a website. The link to forum posts on PG Games is accomplished via a search. Ditto the source for Game Maker Games... The only entry related to PG Games in ANY of the Top 25 lists on that site is a PG Games fangame. As has been stated before, you don't have to establish the existence of PG Games, but the notability. Lankybugger 15:08, 26 August 2006 (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.