Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox Evolved (2nd nomination)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Evolved

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantial hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Put another way, there isn't enough reliable, secondary source content to write a detailed and verifiable article on the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are two non-authoritative lists and several dead links.--Rpclod (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable gaming news site. Unless more secondary sources are added, there's no reason to believe that this subject is notable. Omega625 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to be notable enough for its own article as I couldn't find any articles about the site. However, I did find some sites referencing it like [1] [2] [3] [4] So the content on the site is/was probably reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2016 (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.