Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play n trade

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 no consensus, after weighing both the keep and delete arguments. I do agree that the article needs to be re-written, but that is not a reason enough to delete it outright. The NPOV issue can be dealt with by rephrasing the words and quoting the magazine which calls this enterprise "the fastest-growing video game retailer in the United States". This is a borderline close and the nominator or any other interested party can re-nom this article for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if no more independent sources are available. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play n trade

Play n trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In my opinion it is below the radar on notability Alex Bakharev 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite This article, while not well written, contains information about a company that when searched on Google returned over 29000 hits. It could use a rewrite to organize information and add more, but it should be kept. It is has quite a few franchises and does have some notability. Tcpekin 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep It needs a huge rewrite and sounds like an ad, but is notable. mrholybrain's talk 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless if someone Rewrite it. Seems like an advertising, borders WP:SPAM if not rewritten. Wooyi 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentDoesn't Wikipedia policy (or maybe an essay ... ) mandate that if an article has potential it should not be deleted. I mean we have teh rewrite template for a reason, and it's not just for articles that survive an AfD - be boldDaniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like an advertisement, and nothing more. TJ Spyke 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable. Nardman1 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article contains plenty of information that does not show WP:NPOV--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentIsn't that why we have the NPOV tag? Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I have substantially rewritten the article and sourced it. I think this addresses the "advertisement" claims. As for notability, it's recognition by Entrepreneur Magazine is one indication and 4 unique news articles is another. I will incorporate this additional information into the article and carry out further cleanup as necessary over the next few days. I also propose to move the page to Play N Trade, but will wait until the AfD is closed. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 170 outlets? Notable enough. I see no problems with the article after Black Falcon's excellent rewrite, definitely better than the spammy version before it. Lankiveil 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete The first paragraph violates WP:NPOV as-well as not meeting Notability standards. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works two articles from Entrepreneur Magazine don't seem to fit that, also the article Entrepreneur Magazine looks like a candidate for AFD it's self. Jeepday 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: if not for Black Falcon's rewriting, I would vote delete but the article looks much better now and the game is notable enough. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Too much potential to delete, however that being said it is raw potential. The correct tags must (and will) be added.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have added 2 more news sources about the company. Also, there seems to an actual video game based on the company (see [1]). Perhaps someone with better knowledge in this area could comment. Also, I really don't understand the {{citations missing}} and {{POV}} tags. Could someone please note what the problems are, specifically--on the talk page or through {{fact}}. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the notability attempt. The notability of the sources is questionable, among them a press release claiming "fastest-growing". However, any NPOV issues can be resolved by further editing. Pomte 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - Per nom. --Bryson 22:40, 11 February 2007 (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.