Deletion of Kotaku

Comment: I'm pretty sure at least 2 of the sources it currently has are sufficient; besides, it itself counts as a , not that that matters that much
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per  as being a /RS frequently cited by others and significant in its market. —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMEDIA||WP:VG)

Comment: Not convinced  was followed here. Passed  as far as I can see. Brief search turned up several sources: Referenced Kotaku http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/12/11/fallout-4-exists-and-its-set-in-massachusetts http://news.cnet.com/8300-5_3-0.html?keyword=kotaku http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/09/kotaku-and-the-problem-with-inflammatory-headlines-in-video-game-blogging/ http://www.ibtimes.com/gta-5-grand-theft-auto-5-review-roundup-including-ign-kotaku-polygon-more-1406504 http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/21/4863560/report-next-alien-game-ripleys-daughter. About Kotaku http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/09/kotaku-and-the-problem-with-inflammatory-headlines-in-video-game-blogging/ http://www.vg247.com/2013/05/21/dyack-responds-to-kotaku-expose-on-x-men-destiny-none-of-that-is-true-whatsoever%E2%80%9D/http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/07/editorial-why-i-love-pro-gaming/ http://www.gamefront.com/john-totalbiscuit-bain-puts-kotaku-in-its-place/. A simple notability tag or talk page discussion was all that was needed, leaping straight to AFD is not the way forward. '''Яehevkor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:WEB)

Comment: Personally, |I don't like it, but it's got some press coverage.  I added some more sources to the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)