Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retro VGS


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Retro VGS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 23:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Plenty of sources, satisfied WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I used reliable sources, and IGN also has an article on it (though admittedly it says nothing we haven't already seen on other websites), so I'd say it's pretty notable. Also, I apologize if it seems like I was advertising. I'm really not. I have absolutely nothing to do with the project, I just thought it was a very interesting idea, so I created this page. Logan The Master (talk) 5:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had stumbled across this article in the past, and was also unhappy about it. But, it does seem to have the sources necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Does it need pretty much a complete rewrite, so it doesn't sounds like an "About the Project" type description from a Kickstarter page? Definitely. But I don't know about deletion... Sergecross73   msg me  15:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as it meets notability standards as well as GNG. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 22:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The time spent on this AfD would be better spent cleaning up the article. Yes, it should be sourced to secondary sources wherever possible instead of the press release, however there are a number of sources for the purposes of the general notability guideline, including the TechCrunch refs currently in the article and the first few hits of the video game vetted sources custom Google search. "Advertising" is not a good deletion rationale—otherwise it would qualify for speedy deletion. – czar   03:45, 9 June 2015 (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.