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 speedy keep. Per SK1, both arguments for deletion have been withdrawn and no other view has been brought forth. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VGMaps[edit]

VGMaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No reliable sources based on wikipedia video game source project. Did the google custom search from the project page and it turned up nada for coverage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources SeemsNeedAnAccountForAFD (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Form the references in the article, the Attack of the Show and Joystiq references are secondary references from reliable publishers and the Joystiq source is not quite in depth. The Slashdot, BoingBoing, GoDaddy, and Leung sources are primary, unreliable, or completely off topic. In my opinion, the topic is just below the notability threshold. The article itself has a non-neutral point of view that needs fixing. I marginally recommend deleting the article, but if new secondary sources present themselves, article re-creation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like the nomination has been struck; As the only participant giving a recommendation so far, I'm happy for this AfD to end as "Speedy keep", "No consensus", or "Withdrawn" if that would be the best course of action. Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2013 (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.