Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game X Change

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game X Change

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

Was deprodded with the stated reason of WP:RANK which is not a legitimate reason to prevent deletion. Too few significant mentions in reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careful; WP:RANK includes the following text: Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something. Likewise, not fitting this description does not make something not notable. (Emphasis original.)
Google (news) seems to have a number of regions with differing sources mentioning the company, but nothing that constitutes a significant treatment. Google books has nothing. This is probably a delete. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But the prod removal in question said it in a way that implied that due to its rank, it was immune from being deleted, even before considering sources at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP as mentioned above. I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability. Wichita Coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDC:7A0:526:44B6:5A07:3ED5 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going to need more than a single, local source to indicate significant coverage czar 20:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple more sources like the above IP's, which is what I tried to convey in my !vote above. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (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.