Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Trend (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaming Trend
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Website fails notability. The last afd in 2006 ended in no consensus, but all the keep votes voted keep because the website appeared on Metacritic and Gamerankings. Being on aggregator websites does not establish notability since every and any site can get on there. This article was created over 3 years ago and still not a single reliable source.--Coasttocoast (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Website with no particular indicated notability. LotLE × talk  08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. If no reliable sources have shown up in 3 years, they're unlikely to show up anytime soon. No particular notability claimed in article.  Present Alexa rank a rather unimpressive 205,732. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's biggest claim of notability is that the site is listed on GameRankings and Metacritic, but that's not much of a claim at all. A Google search for the site name turns some of the site's pages, a ton of completely unrelated pages, and occasional repostings of their reviews on N4G. Nothing substantial Oh, and apparently they employ a reviewer who has no problem insulting other reviewers for having a different opinion on a game. If this site was actually notable, surely there would be some news and blog posts about that. But it appears that very few people noticed or cared. Reach Out to the Truth 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability in terms of media coverage, hits, etc. Aggregator websites get as many sites as they can in order to look bigger. And yeah, this guy insults other reviewers. Crazysunshine (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Still fails WP:WEB --Teancum (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Gaming Trend reviews are also reproduced on N4G.com. See:, . SharkD   Talk  03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that all that N4G *does* is reproduce other people's reviews... SharkD   Talk  05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bah... the nominations to delete are from a bunch of butthurt Giant Bomb fanboys http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/gaming-trend-reviewer-calls-jeff-gerstmann-a-douche/272744/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.142.166 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.16.142.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nomination has been fueled by some people who don't like their favorite person to be criticized. They are trying to get back at GamingTrend by having the page deleted. If they didn't feel like the site was a credible site, they wouldn't be going after it with such accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.163.215 (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil during these deletion discussions. MuZemike 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing a notability tag on Giant Bomb. That one is close to failing WP:WEB as well, most of their references come from themselves. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.