Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VG Chartz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, the reliability of the website itself should be addressed elsewhere (non-admin closure). Icewedge (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VG Chartz[edit]

VG Chartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Besides being used as a source a couple of times and having minor coverage, this is not a notable web site. There's no reception to the web site, no major coverage of it. It's just a site with a lot of hits, and that's got nothing to do with notability. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe this website is in fact notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to badger, but why is it notable? That it has been used as a source doesn't mean it's notable - a web site should have far more than that to be called notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article [1] seems to discuss them in some detail. But my judgement was based on them appearing to be an established and important source for information used by mainstream media and others. So, a judgement call based on the article and the references I found indicating they deserved to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • definitely keep Per WP:WEB,

1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

These meet the criterion.[2][3]

3 The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

These meet the criterion.[4][5][6][7]

It is obvious VG Chartz is notable.--Kukule (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep per WP:WEB--Claude (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not very obvious from the article's content. All I see is sparse usage of VG Chartz occasionally - heck, I've probably observed VG Chartz in a capacity of people arguing that the methodology is flawed, and VG Chartz not rebutting it by revealing what they are working with to find these figures. That Brett, someone who lacks any formal training in sales analysis, posts his figures on a web site and it gets used because no other sources exist is not a good reason for it to have an article. The article cites VGChartz for much of it content, including the Content and Analysis sections. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and most of the argument for keeping the article lies in it being sourced several times as a result of its popularity, not its accuracy. On top of all this, it's been decided time and time again that the vgcharts and vgchartz sites not be used due to its inaccuracy. I just don't see how being sourced a few times is an assertion of notability - I've seen far more articles deleted or merged that have much, much more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the first two sources referenced by Kukule seem to meet the general notability guideline as providing in-depth coverage via multiple independent sources. MuZemike (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears notable per the sources provided. I'm confused why unreliability keeps coming up so much here, such as this from ALttP: "...most of the argument for keeping the article lies in it being sourced several times as a result of its popularity, not its accuracy". Exactly. We don't base arguments for keeping articles on the accuracy of the subject—we base it (in part) on it the sources available. Pagrashtak 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VGChartz had has third party reviews of how its sales data compares to NPD Group, etc., and thus has been a somewhat controversial subject, thus it is notable. Just because it has an article on WP doesn't mean it should be considered a trustworthy source for other game articles. --MASEM 15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VGChartz is a popular website that has been sourced in many major news sources. The person who put this up for deletion appears to have a personal hatred of the site. Accuracy is NOT one of the criteria by which wikipedia judges whether or not to keep an article, as much as he would like it to be. - Anonymous, 18 November 2008 21:52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.175 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 November 2008
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Google news search lights up like a Christmas tree. PC World, Wired, Ars Technica, Kotaku, Joystiq. Shit, even the NPD hates their guts. "Besides being used as a source a couple of times--" Stop. Your rationale is false and full of inaccuracies. SashaNein (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, VGChartz's accuracy as a measure for sales is independent of its notability. Theoretically, it could be wrong 70% of the time, yet still be notable by Wikipedia's standards because of secondary sourcing (OH WATE). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VG_Chartz&oldid=1138744376"