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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2010[edit]

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

Individual instances of this expo are not relevant by themselves, and adding a list of companies represented there doesn't make it so. There is an article History of the Electronic Entertainment Expo, and it is possible that some of this information can be safely placed in there, but unless we see some solid sourcing that this particular E3 is independently notable, not just a place where notable products were revealed, it fails WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Partially because, each year, this expo gets massive amounts of coverage - it's the biggest expo for the industry in the world, surely it musters up a meager 3-4 sources to meet the GNG. The other hangup I have is how bizarre it would be to just delete this years iteration. We've got an article for every year dating back to 1995 - over 20 iterations. If we truly believe these individual articles aren't notable, there should be some massive merger discussion to merge them all back, not just delete this random one. (Its not realistic to think that this decade spanning massive expo was randomly not notable one random year...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Sergecross73, you say "We've got an article for every year dating back to 1995 - over 20 iterations." I assume you came to this conclusion because all these expos appear in the E3 template, but if you check the links, you'll see that every one prior to 2009 simply redirects to History of the Electronic Entertainment Expo. I agree with your essential point, though.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After working on the article for the 2016 version, each iteration (at least from the last decade) are generally all notable; all that is needed is establishing a bit more context on the general outcome/flavor of the event that puts the expo in perspective. (For this one, it's the introduction of the motion sensing peripherals for Xbox and PlayStation being the largest shakers, from what I both recall and can check on google news with a 5 minute search). --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expanding on the 2 comments above, many tech websites write articles like this - https://www.engadget.com/2010/06/22/e3-2010-wrap-up/ - which go into great detail about the events of the show every year, both with the article itself, and tons of imbedded links to other individual articles that cover the individual announcements in greater detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This definitely passes WP:GNG. There are more than plenty of sources discussing the convention.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. There is not only the Best of E3/Game Critic Awards,([9]) but also the press conferences, reception of the show (aka Who win E3?)[10][11]) The same goes for most other E3 conventions out there. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:53, 17 August 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.