Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polygon (website)

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 redirect to Vox Media. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Nothing but sourcing from the company owner (

• Redirect to
  The Verge (website), and possibly add a subsection regarding Polygon once it is an established subsidiary of its parent site. From the lead section of the article
  (emphasis added to words denoting future tense):

"Polygon is an upcoming American video game news and media network operated by Vox Media. The network will be managed by its editor in chief Christopher Grant and Vox Media's chief content officer Marty Moe. The publication will compete with similar video game news websites such as Joystiq, Kotaku, Destructoid, 1UP.com, and IGN."

In other words, it has not yet launched.

WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: According to
  The Verge (website)) is detailed and extensive. Therefore, the real question becomes "Should we tear down this article now only to rebuild it sometime in the next four months (as the website is intended to launch in "2012")?" My answer would be "No." It is difficult for me to find any merit in destroying an article such as this--which, admittedly, could use a considerable deal of work--only to resurrect it later. DillonLarson (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

After giving myself a moment to think this through more thoroughly, I believe my argument--while not incorrect or misled--was fueled by my passion for the subject, not my desire (which is very great) to maintain Wikipedia's standards of

The Verge (website).) DillonLarson (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (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.