Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueAchievements.com


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TrueAchievements.com

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

delete- non notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Page was moved to per style guide.


 * keep Per Notability (web) "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."  References include Joystiq and OXM, and it was mentioned in an OXM PRINT article as well.  -- Norvy (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this meets our criteria for inclusion. Disclosure: I recently declined the db-corp speedy. –xenotalk 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. –xenotalk  18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks notable per WP:WEB. The article cites multiple independent, reliable sources.  And since the nomination consists of a grand total of two words, I don't know of any other reason why this should be deleted. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator has a practice of not attempting to find sources and this one is no exception. There are sufficient sources to justify inclusion, and they are even included right in the article text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, there was a reason I opened this up...."12:32, June 16, 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs) (3,679 bytes) (declined db-corp (should have been db-web) "20,000 registered users" a (somewhat weak) statement of notability, no prejudice to AFD) (undo) " Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No prejudice to AFD doesn't necessarily mean I think one should be opened though! =) –xenotalk 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true but it should be opened to community discussion as there is no proof of notability.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines only require coverage in multiple reliable sources, as you have been informed numerous times by many different users. That qualification is satisfied here.  Maybe it doesn't meet your definition of notable, but it does meet Wikipedia's. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article? You're the only one who doesn't see notability, and I'm not sure you found the time to actually look for it because you tried to speedy delete it the same minute I created it.  Have a second look at it, and maybe withdraw the nomination so we can speedy keep and move on.  -- Norvy (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * xobox scoring doesn't exactly make something encyclopeadic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My understanding of our style standards is that the article should be moved to True Achievements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The name they use is TrueAchievements, and yes it should be moved. Otherwise we're just providing advertising. Greg Tyler (t &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing precluding editorially-motivated page moves in the middle of an AFD, have at it! –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to TrueAchievements, then. Sorry, I couldn't find a style manual for naming websites.  -- Norvy (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in many reliable sources. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability requirements and is well sourced, cannot really find a reason for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 07:09, 17 June 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.