Deletion of N4G

Comment: Fails ; written like an advertisement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Advertising (WP:ADVERT)

Comment: This is a tough one to call. Looking at the |notability guidelines for websites, it will be very difficult for N4G to satisfy criterion 1, as it does not produce any content itself but instead relies upon links to the content of others. The website hasn't won a well known or independent award either. The content hasn't been redistributed in an independent mechanism either, as it doesn't have any content of it's own. Having said that, they have been the subject of multiple news articles for either the mechanism used http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Is-N4G-Good-For-Gaming-Or-Just-A-Controversial-Marketing-Tool-5117.htmlhttp://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/02/n4g_the_metaing_of_the_metagam.php, or that Future plc bought a share of the company. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17247http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/05/future-publishing-buys-share-of-n4g-com/http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-social-news-site-for-gamers-n4g-gets-investment-from-publisher-future-u/ With all this in mind, I think the website has garnered some notability but not in the specific areas required by . However, if we take the alternative view that N4G is an organisation as well as a website, then it can also be assesed by the |notability guidelines for organisations and coporations, as it has had significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Using  as the basis, instead of , it passes |notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:CORP||WP:CORP||WP:WEB||WP:N)