Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGM 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SGM Games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I could go through each one of its sources one by one, but the citations in use are either (1) unreliable, (2) local (Cleveland, San Diego—not showing outside import), (3) primary (usu. the dev's own site). Altogether, their products are not the subject of significant coverage. And besides all this, the article as written has a promotional tone. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  czar  15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Page has been reviewed, promotional tone adjusted. References added, showing that games created by SGM Games are available for the public which can be found on the Android playstore and Apple Store as well. Please revisit. Daisybest (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Usually it's WP:INHERIT that comes to mind with video game companies, in which case they've developed a notable video game. In this case, they haven't done so to begin with. Not a notable company. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has independent sources and should rather be reduced to a stub so more editors can work on it.Cleojason (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It already is a stub, but do the sources have the depth, reliability, and independence needed to write a full article? czar  15:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks independent, non-trivial resources. red dogsix (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 14 March 2016 (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.