Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game On (exhibition)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game On (exhibition)

Doesn't explain why it's notable, it seems to be more like a list then an article and is totally unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - While the original state of the article left a little to be desired, the topic is clearly notable. It has been claimed that the exhibition has been seen by over 1 million people worldwide, including 117,000 in Melbourne alone[1]. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated. The article could claim that it has been seen by a billion people, but without any reliable references that are independent of the exhibitors, the claim is meaningless.--Lester 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you seriously believe that an exhibition, seen worldwide, is less notable than most of the minor movies, albums, etc. that infest this place? That places such as ACMI, the Science Museum, the Barbican Art Gallery and the Museum of Science and Industry have invented the figures mentioned in the article demonstrated above or should we asking for independent audits? Its all very well to be sceptical, but some common sense is needed too. -- 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reply to User:Mattinbgn) - First, regarding the claim in the article that it is "seen by over 1 million people worldwide", where did that claim come from? As I write this, there are 2 references at the end of the claim, both refs are from the exhibitors themselves, and I can't find any mention of "a million people". We don't need "independent audits", just reliable references for such claims. Second, there's not a lot of content in the article, apart from a list of dates, and a list of games seen on the exhibition floor. Third, regarding your comment about a past exhibition being more notable than many minor movies and albums: There is a certain transience about an exhibition in that it is not permanent and cannot be viewed after the exhibition has finished (unlike movies and albums). This may be emphasised by the fact that a newspaper may publish a pointer to the exhibition in the Entertainment / "What's on this week" section, but do they mention it ever again after the exhibition has closed? However, I'll leave it up to others to comment on whether past / closed exhibitions deserve the same status as albums and movies, as I don't know what the Wikipedia precedent is. --Lester 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet general notability standards - I've found a number of reliable sources independent of the exhibition. The BBC has a couple of articles ([2], [3]), a couple from The Independent ([4], [5]), a couple from The Guardian ([6], [7]), a couple from The Register ([8], [9]), as well as australian newspaper (which supports the claim about 1 million viewers): ([10]), and a couple of other sources: [11], [12]. Silverfish (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it might need a bit of cleanup, but it certainly meets WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup. samj (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Silverfish, there is ground for a section on its reception. Ottre (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2008 (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.