Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopTenReviews (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 redirect to TechMediaNetwork, Inc.. Any content to potentially merge can be salvage from history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TopTenReviews

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability claims are tenuous, at best most of the awards are minor, mostly lacking notability themselves, some are simply marketing. I re-list mostly because the previous listing from 5 years ago was tainted by some pretty serious sockpuppeting, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr90s/Archive. Яehevkor ✉ 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote against deletion, because Top Ten Reviews is a major site on the web. If anyone wanted to put some effort into the article, multiple citations could be found that were more notable than these awards. I'd write a better article myself, but I'm an employee of the parent company, so it would be a conflict. Jfp999 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering that the guy who nominated the page for deletion edited the article just prior to nominating it to remove the majority of the article, I'd say this is a pretty shoddy process. Jfp999 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worthwhile was removed. It isn't being deleted because of lack of content, its being deleted because lack of notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Rehevkor rightfully removed that information. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 209th largest web site in the United States according to Quantcast (https://www.quantcast.com/toptenreviews.com), and that actually understates it. That certainly qualifies as notable for websites. Here's 4 reputable links that I found with about 5 minutes effort on Google: http://paidcontent.org/2010/01/12/419-toptenreviews-adds-1-5-million-in-funding/

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/09/17/technology-review-company-benefits-high-use-mobile-devices

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/04/20/utc-names-ogden-businessman-ceo-year

http://www.standard.net/topics/business/2009/10/26/ogden-web-site-buys-nyc-company

Though, to be honest, I think the article given how little it contains should just be merged into the article on Tech Media Network (the parent company) Jfp999 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to go through Wikipedia:Notability (web) to see if it can pass any of those criterias. I'll go through them myself later to see if this article can be salvaged. If not, a redirect would be my second preferred option, if this website is as popular as you say. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One criteria is "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." The OMMA award certainly qualifies for that. They are well known in media circles. The American Business Awards are well known also. There's also been plenty of magazine and newspaper coverage of Top Ten Reviews since it's founding. But, as I said, my opinion is unless somebody wants to actually put some effort into the article, it should just be redirected to the parent company page. Jfp999 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I hate the website, the worthless reviews ranked by commission (weird how none of the top 25 antivirus products are free) and the hundreds of Google spam subdomains, it's notable. Most of the notability probably relates to the business side, which was renamed TechMediaNetwork, so it could be worth merging. - hahnch e n 14:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TechMediaNetwork, Inc.. Notability is borderline; a few reliable sources exist, but I'm not convinced there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article. There's barely even any content to merge here. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2013 (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.