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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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.