Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructoid

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, with a strong recommendation for better sourcing in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructoid[edit]

Delete: Appears to be shameless spam and has been deleted four times already. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. This page confirms that a fan of the site created the article. There are basically no independent sources listed and the Alexa rating isn't that impressive, esp. considering how Alexa can be rigged. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming good faith on the Technorati rankings, suggests that it is in fairly widespread use. Like religion pages that are primarily made by members of the religion, or Evolution pages that are primarikly maintained by evolutionists, or Star Wars pages made by Star Wars fans-- I'm unpersuaded by arguments that a company's Wiki article is made by those who use and are fans of the company/website. Tarinth 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this instance of the article asserts notability. I recall the E3 incident with the robot head being mentioned by numerous gaming sites, and the thing with Joystiq should count for something. Also, their coverage of Jack Thompson's recent court case in Miami regarding Bully was second to none. Maxamegalon2000 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, under-1000 on Technorati is not that impressive, and trawling around, indicators are that the forums are perhaps more popular than the blog. One stunt briefly noticed by niche media doesn't count for much. (Btw, a "fan of the site" is a far cry from WP:COI.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you look at their comment count? Trolls aside this is significant: this page Their helmet is also notable, surprised nobody had added a photo. — Andersonanderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Firm Keep This is a fairly notable gaming news source, though it could use better sourcing. A lack of proper sourcing is entirely different from a lack of available sourcing. Lankybugger 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destructoid seems to be on par with sites such as Kotaku and Joystiq, even surpassing them at times with their coverage of the Bully trial and as Andersonanderson said, the comment count that they get seems to be nothing to scoff at. Looking at their technorati, they also seem to be fairly syndicated by a number of sources. My one gripe is the sourcing material. 66.94.89.148 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not the typical blog site, but it obviously has a huge following. If Capcom is willing to go to such great lengths to help them with weekly Lost Planet contests that surpass those on Kotaku, then it clearly has more than just Alexa and Technorati numbers. They've even been on G4TV several times in the past.68.225.92.123 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I cannot find evidence this has been the primary source of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destructoid is a valable news source for video gaming. It also has importance in the rise of blogging that has happened and how different blogs can find their niche and do very well with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vetes (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Popular enough that I believe it could be sourced. Article could use a bit of cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.