- 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. WinHunter (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info about a website such as this on Wikipedia is hardly encyclopediac. It's mainly advertisement. Why are there not other sites like these that have articles on Wikipedia? Delete.Richard 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Other sites like this do have sites on Wikipedia, and they are equally lacking in assertions of notability or proof thereof. That's why we have AfD :-) Captainktainer * Talk 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has a very notable website that really needs cleanup more than deletion. guitarhero777777 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If they were really (to quote the article) "Widely acclaimed by such magazines as Game Informer and other published works as the San Francisco Chronicle" then that would be notable enough. It isn't sourced but an AFD isn't the way to deal with that is it? Chris M. 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is. We assume good faith toward contributors, not articles. There is no verified claim of notability in the article. Captainktainer * Talk 23:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Just because there are other similarly weak articles doesn't mean we have to keep this one too. And even if it had a rewrite I can't honestly say this site is all that noteworthy compared to the mighty GameFAQs, so that's a second strong reason for me to vote delete. GarrettTalk 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is currenly recieving a huge update with extreme amounts of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyboy1334 (talk • contribs)
- Keep: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start!!! Notable, and a very complete site--Much more complete than other strategy/cheat sites out there. very notable. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:WEB. "Widely acclaimed by such magazines as Game Informer and other published works as the San Francisco Chronicle, it is a very popular site with many different sections." is a pretty big claim. Checking this claim over at their own website yields a dead link for Game Informer and a mention in a SFC article about the website "http://vgstrategies.about.com/" ( a.k.a. "Our partnership with the Video Games Strategies site at About.com (formerly MiningCo.Com)" ). Of the links on this page that aren't dead, none mention gamewinners.com --Mitaphane talk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Peephole 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. +Fin- 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete? it may be a very good page; but a whole article in this page is just publicity ... i think this could be on a link; but not in a whole page (thought; i'm not sure). +lol man- 21:22, 13 September 2006 (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.