Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopTenReviews


 * 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   keep. Wikipedian06 provided the sources to demonstrate notability; while a great deal of them were trivial mentions, et al which did not help it meet requirements, there are enough real bits in there to fufill WP:WEB. May I note that all the other Alexa arguments for keeping are complete and utter bunk and were entirely disregarded; further, arguments about “what is more reliable” do not help assert notability one way or another and should not come up at AfD. This is not a “who is better” contest between TTN and Metacritic or GameRankings. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TopTenReviews

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Website does not seem notable, majority of sources are primary and no notable, creator JakeThomson created and liked this article and web page only. Appears to fail WP:WEB and may be a vanity article. Rehevkor (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TopTenReviews is more notable than Game Rankings and sources of TopTenReviews article are less primary than those of Game Rankings article.TopTenReviews article is less vanity than Game Rankings article, so TopTenReviews article should not be deleted.--Handsome elite (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the articles 12 references (for which the reflist keeps getting deleted for some reason), most are repeated refs linking directly to the website, another is a press release released by the website (Repeated 4 times), another is Alexa which is being used in a vain attempt to assert notability in numbers alone. Other articles and such comparisons are pretty much irrelevant when considering AfD. Rehevkor (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. TopTenReviews is more notable than Game Rankings. If GR's article is considered encyclopedic, then clearly, so is TTR's.
 * Google test: TopTenReviews: 1.48 million results Game Rankings: 1.1 million results
 * Alexa test: TopTenReviews: 3,616 Game Rankings: 3,218 Metacritic: 4,568


 * Also, TTR's spot was added in Template:VG Reviews for a reason. Metacritic and Game Rankings are both owned by CNET. This doesn't represent a good, balanced point of view. JakeThomson (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the search engine test. If you remove the results from TopTenReviews.com the results are substantially less, but then the test never was a very good way of establishing notability. Rehevkor (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 140,000 results vs. 203,000 results. I wouldn't call that a statistically significant difference. JakeThomson (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 384,000 results vs. 208,000 results.--Handsome elite (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said comparing yourself to Gamerankings is irrelevant here, "Just because Gamerankings has an article why shouldn't TopTenReviews?" is an invalid argument, you need to prove notability through third party sources, something this article fails to do. It's not a numbers game. Rehevkor (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rehevkor,you just state TopTenReviews does not seem notable,and you do not prove it at all.TopTenReviews is obviously more notable than Game Rankings and many other websites.--Handsome elite (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, it's not my job to prove notability. And the article itself certainly doesn't assert notability through third-party sources. Rehevkor (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article does not currently meet WP:WEB criteria; the only references are primary sources and press releases, and I can't find any third-party sources that aren't either trivial or press release reprints. --Muchness (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TTR has been cited by well-known publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, and more. This meets WP:WEB. JakeThomson (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. user JakeThomson's only edits have been on the subject of TopTenReviews. Rehevkor (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely Delete - I had to go to page 7 on Google to find a non-subdomain result for "toptenreviews". Saying it has more hits on Google is not a valid argument as lots of links that turn up are "The top ten reviews for Firefox" or whatever. Fin©™ 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's an interesting discussion on TopTenReviews notability here. Fin©™ 11:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what this is for. JakeThomson (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails our standards for website articles. Mere raw Googlesearch is not enough. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep on the discussion of here, TopTenReviews seems more reliable than Metacritic.--Dr90s (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:WEB, 1 2 3; meets all requirements. That said, I would like to see the article expanded to include more external sources. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (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.