Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure Gamers (3rd nomination)

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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Gamers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear notable, article is too short. Looks like there is not a lot to say about it. noteability needs establishing and article needs to be increased massively in size for it to be worth keeping. Also more sources from outside the subjects website should be found. At the minute I am saying this should be erased. Also it appears the person who started the page has admitted been associated with the website on the articles talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adventure_Gamers and look at the bottom of the talk page for a section with the heading december 2006 (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep the last deletion nomination was only 3 months ago, it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly, especially when the prior AfD had consensus. Yes I know it was closed no consensus but the preponderance of arguments were for keeping. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering I did not see the previous deletion discussion prior to setting up this nomination with twinkle your comments that state: it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly are highly inappropriate and very offensive. And even though its been nominated twice before it don't get round the fact the article is not worth keeping per my comments on the discussion opener(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I understand that it wasn't your intention, I didn't mean my comment to sound hostile. However I feel that renomination at this time is premature. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While there is no set rule about when an article can be renominated, the general feeling is that it's about 3-6 months give or take for "keep" closes and about 1-3 months give or take for "no consensus" closes so I don't think there's anything wrong with the time frame. However, WP:BEFORE says Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. This is especially important for more recent nominations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the first AFD and second AFD "The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers" as a quoted resource, which is cited within the article. Additionally, nominating because the article is "too short" is unreasonable and a non-reason to begin with. Why don't we just go ahead and delete all stubs? (aka Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Additionally, the fact that the article's creator has a conflict of interest is meaningless in the context of an AFD, and has never been considered a reason to delete, only to cleanup to remove any bias. This is standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. This strongly smacks of I don't like it. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep I'm not worried about who started the article, the last deletion highlighted a lot of potential sources and frankly I don't wish to spend what limited time I have trying to get at them just because it's up for deletion again after a few months have passed. No disrespect intended to the nominator but there seems little appetite to delete the article right now and I'm not seeing this particular discussion going anywhere. Someone another 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.