Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PGNx Media (3rd 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 Procedural close, AfD shelved until sockpuppet issues are resolved. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media (3rd nomination)

 * — (View AfD)

A multiplatform videogame website. Prior deletions have been overturned at deletion review and the article is now back here for consideration of the claims and sources. This is procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but it needs more WP:V. Just H 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happen to verify anything in the article that would require a source. Do you have a particular example? Infomanager 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to the critical acclaim and well known associates (such as Rotten Tomatoes) of the site. That seemed to put it just over the border of Keep for me, more of that will send it further over the edge. Just H 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on WP:WEB - PGNx Media meets the third possibility in the WP:WEB requirement. As a reminder, it requires that "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" - The content is actually distributed through a number of independent online publications, but for the source of this argument, I will be using Rotten Tomatoes.
 * Rotten Tomatoes is well-known
 * Rotten Tomatoes is independent; It is owned by IGN whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc. There are no connections -- shared owners, editors, revenues, etc.
 * This is a link to a review by Jose Liz-Moncion (credited as Jose Liz) for PGNx Media on Rotten Tomatoes' website. Here is another and yet another.
 * Rotten Tomatoes does not redistribute content for all websites.
 * Infomanager 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on WP:RS - The sources mentioned in the article, namely Metacritic, Game Rankings, and Rotten Tomoatoes are notable, reliable, and independent sources. As I mentioned above, PGNx Media does not share any editors, owners, etc with any of those sources. Any notable claims, such as the size of the review archives, business opportunities, etc are sources. The claims in the article are not extraordinary or self-supporting. Infomanager 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on website's content - Its review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews, making it the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications . Keep in mind that while users can add links to Gamerankings, all links have to be approved by a Gamerankings editor. Infomanager 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on article's structure - The article was written to comply with Wikipedia's objective tone and I followed the structure used by other websites (namely Introduction, Coverage, Notability, Staff, Criticisms) Infomanager 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on passing the five-year rule - As mentioned in the article, PGNx Media will began its sixth year of operations in two weeks. As someone who follows videogame websites, this is an important milestone and one that not many are able to claim (especially those that are independent). Also, in looking at the website today, I noticed that they have published over 13,000 articles in the last five years . Infomanager 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Websites primarily seem to involve WP:WEB and WP:RS. As discussed above, I fully believe that both of those requirements have been aptly met and demonstrated in the article. With 5 years, 13,000 articles, and 1,200 reviews under their belts, I don't see this website going away anytime soon. They have demonstrated to be important in their field. Infomanager 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Infomanager has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that the article is notable and verifiable. --Falcorian (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:WEB, WP:RS were demonstrated. I have absolutely no concerns not addressed above. Brendan Alcorn 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met (though it is questionable whether the distribution methods truly demostrate notability). My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) are definitely met. So, weak keep. --- RockMFR 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stronger than normal keep - Comments on WP:WEB and WP:RS demonstrate that these policies/guidelines have been met. Other comments pushed me towards a strong-ish keep. Paul D. Meehan 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep More "this is gonna be renominated time and again till we get the result we want?" Jcuk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To clarify, it's more a case of "contest deletion until we get the result we want," since consensus was to delete the first two times.  --Alan Au 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but needs major work. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:RS and WP:WEB have been well demonstrated. Brad Guzman 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Infomanager has aptly proved WP:WEB and WP:RS. Some of the notability section should be cleaned up a bit, although I understand why it was written that way for the purposes of a deletion review and AfD. Gisele Hsieh 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep from me as well. I cleaned up the notability section because some of it came across as boasting. Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:RS extremely well. Alan Shatte 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per infomanager. Website meets requirements stipulated in WP:RS and WP:WEB. Article seems to be written in an encyclopedic manner, especially after the recent string of edits. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep passes WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS Joel Jimenez 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - gaming media sites seem under constant attack for whatever reason. Tarinth 10:20, 6 January 2007 (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.