Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International eGames Committee

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. Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International eGames Committee

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PuraVida19 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is, but I'm assuming the issue is notability. The article does need some help. The International Business Times article implying British government backing (and this piece saying a government secretary is involved) is about as close as this gets to notability. Other coverage seems to help suggest the fact that this organization might need more time to cook. I'm going to say weak delete or redirect to eGames (eSports), which gets stronger if the current article is taken into account. Raymie (t • c) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found this [1] CNBC article talking about this org, but that a bit week, so I agree that this article is a bit WP:TOOSOON Rrachet (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:33, 19 July 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.