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. However I have no objection to userfying or incubating upon request. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospec[edit]

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

This is a tough one for me to call, because I do actually like some of the stuff these guys produce, but with a complete lack of any significant coverage in any reliable sources leads me to conclude that, aside from cursory mentions in the game articles, this group just isn't notable enough to have an article, and a redirect would be problematic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 11 January 2013 (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) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Tough for me too. Interesting article, I'll be sorry to see it go. But googling news for "retrospec games" yielded just one possibly decent coverage of one of their games: http://www.gamershell.com/news_7728.html Not really enough. Ultimately an article about the group has to comply with WP:CORP but I can't see how it does. I remember once reading about an obscure area of Wikipedia that serves as a repository for articles that must be deleted from main space that the community has regrets about deleting. I can't remember what that is. I do remember some particularly clever hoax articles were there. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Perhaps Wikipedia:Article incubator might be a solution for keeping it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best sources I was able to find Googling were essentially game catalogs, such as those at GameSpy and IGN, but there was little about the Retrospec group itself. There are some in-depth articles on the Retrospec group archived at the Retrospec website, but I don't know enough about the gaming scene to know if PC Zone and Retro Gamer are considered reliable sources. Perhaps more knowledgeable editors could take a look? Mark viking (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant independent coverage, I must conclude not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 01:20, 19 January 2013 (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.