Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sogamed

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sogamed
1) Nothing links to it. 2) It's not known outside of its fanbase. 3) There's no information here that you wouldn't be able to find on their website, and I can't imagine how it could be expanded to become encyclopedic. edit: you may count this as a "delete/merge" vote Ashibaka (tock) 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere. Kappa 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. At least it doesn't read like an ad, but there is no evidence of notability presented here. --Scimitar 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm working on enhancing a number of the gaming community articles, with Online Gaming Organizations being a hub for most of them. Of course, the hard part is finding sources of information other than each community's own website. If I can't find anything outside, it may be prudent to create another article that talks about the broad of "community" sites and explains the phenomenon. I have to admit to never having heard of SoGamed until I saw it on Wikipedia. I'm not a gaming industry guy or a teen-aged game player, so I am on the outside of most of this, looking in. --Habap 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems notable.Howabout1 Talk to me!  17:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into larger article about gaming news sites. --FCYTravis 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - providing it will be extended. This is a somewhat influential site in the semi-professional gaming community/fanbase. -mrbartjens 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I got a huge article from one of their staff and am trimming it and working to make it NPOV. --Habap 20:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice work, though it reads like "oh look how many cool features this site has" here and there - it's hard to avoid that when writing about sites' functions though. -mrbartjens 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, obscurity is not grounds for removal; it satisfies the "500+ people concurrently interested in the subject" rule at Importance. Comment: is this vfd over yet? Slike2 22:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.