- 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Funagain Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not-notable enough for own article. Moglex 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In case anybody wants to read the NYT article, the full text is available [1] free of charge. As far as the article goes, in the world of board game hobbyists, Funagain is one of the oldest and best known online retailers. They've had a significant role in the development of the hobby. I realize that the article needs additional secondary sources and I'll try to turn some up. -Chunky Rice 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is it the notability standard for web content that's being cited in the AfD notice, and not the (somewhat less stringent) standard for companies and organizations? -Stellmach 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is actually a close call. The criteria I'm going by is from WP:CORP "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I don't believe the NYT article quite meets this standard. The NYT is certainly a reliable source, and independent of the subject, but the depth of coverage is shallow. It looks like it appeared in a less "newsy" section of the paper. Certainly not in the business section. For that reason I think it should take multiple sources to establish notability for this article. If someone can come up with more sources I'll change my opinion. Bgplayer 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Google news archive search comes up with several dozen references; most of them aren't substantial, but together I believe they satisfy notability standards. Propaniac 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable retail shop. Fails WP:CORP as much as its website fails WP:WEB. —ptk✰fgs 17:41, 3 August 2007 (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.