Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Gaming Coalition

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 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Gaming Coalition

Contested prod. Most likely a vanity article by some gaming group. Only cited sources are personal blogs, only gets one Google hit. Comment on talk page:

Due to the illusive nature of organization I challenge the move to delete the article on the grounds that whilst the only cited sources are personal blogs, Wikipedians would be denied knowledge if the article was deleted. When the article grows I expect that we can find more contributions to the article and to kill the article after two or three days of creation would be an irrational measure.

"Wikipedians would be denied knowledge" is not enough of a reason by itself. Wikipedians would be denied knowledge of my left pinky if I didn't write an article about it, but does anyone care? You can write an article about your organisation when it has actually gained some notability outside its own little inner circle. Delete. JIP | Talk 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiable or reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB with no outside coverage. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument for inclusion. DarkAudit 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

KeepIn my mind there is no reason to assume that the sources cited are not reliable. Just because the sources provided are personal blogs is no reason to delete the article. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument for deletion. WP:IDONTCARE is not a valid argument for deletion.84.9.54.106 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: By far the most of the above user's contributions are to the article and deletion discussion. This is a possible conflict of interest. JIP | Talk 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Personal blogs are not independent reliable sources for a group. Phony Saint 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete gaming clan of some sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — 0 hits on Yahoo!, MSN, Google, and Ask jeeves; per nominator. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. Some people in Finland invite their friends to play Age of Empires 2. They have a blog. They are mys-teer-ious. They do not assert notability. Serpent's Choice 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "small, elite and exclusive group of multiplayer online gamers" to me, that tells the whole thing. DGG 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable at all. Maxamegalon2000 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument for deletion.

Non notablity is not a valid reason for deletion as more info should be given.@Serpent's Choice this is no place for sarcasm.

84.252.238.158 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Supplied source is not reliable per WP:SOURCE, plus primary notablilty criteria (WP:N) requires multiple references. And I'm sorry, but the tone reeks of self-promotion. Marasmusine 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, apparently 'multiple' has gone from WP:N; but opinion still stands. Marasmusine 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lets ignore the google number issue and look at ACTUAL guidelines and policies this article fails: It's got no reliable sources to support any claim to notability. The google test is not a set-in-stone test, but a returned result of 1 result, along with the article only having blogs as sources means there is a highly unlikely chance of any reliable sources, which means the article fails verifiability, which means it needs deleting. DarkSaber2k 13:16, 15 May 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.