Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMOsite

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMOsite[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Site does not appear to be notable (I have looked for significant coverage via Google news and found nothing beyond name-drops). Sources are alexa hits (not a sign of notability), and the primary site itself. MASEM (t) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How would a review website be determined as notable? I would think by the exclusive interviews they get. People in the game industry do interviews with them, and some of these give exclusive interviews. A well funded company with a costly MMO game wouldn't ignore all others, and agree to just do an interview with this one site, if they weren't notable. Alexa says they get 13 million hits a month, and obviously, a review site that gets millions of people reading the reviews is far more notable than one who gets none at all. Remember, the guidelines are not the only way to determine notability. You can think for yourself, and determine what is the right course of action. Dream Focus 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For full disclosure, MMOSite is also being discussed if it is to be considered a reliable source. I want to stress that notability and reliability are two distinct things; we can have non-notable but reliable sources for supporting notability in other articles; we can have notable unreliable sites that have been discussed at length in other reliable sources (eg like IMDB). If this is deleted, it should not impact the discussion of whether the site is reliable or not, though certainly there may be common sources (that I can't locate) that work towards demonstrating both aspects. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability has not been established; hits are not a measure of notability; article has no reliable sources, even to establish hits figure p b p 16:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Review on MMMsite specifically [1], [2], some additional info [3]. There really should be a section about their annual awards ceremony. This site is difficult to research reviews on because their entire site is about reviews. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two of those links don't appear to be reliable sources p b p 17:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TopTenReviews has it's own article. There is nothing indicating unrealiability in its list of awards. AlteredGamer is used as a reference elsewhere on wikipedia. It also appears to have editorial oversite, which meets the criteria for a RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability and reliability are two separate facets. We have articles on unreliable sources, and we have reliable sources that don't have their own article. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused, so please enlighten me. The winner for Website Excellence in Education is considered an unreliable source, per your own words. What exactly does a website have to do to become a reliable source? Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are ones that have an established history of editorial control. This does not appear to be the case of MMOSite. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently talking about TopTenReviews, though. That site has a detailed review on MMOsite, which adds to its notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, at least as I understand it, TopTenReviews is not a reliable site (at least for WP:VG/S, our concern is that it a site design to boost game sales and thus lacks neutrality). It's notable (per its existing article) but again, reliability is not the same as notability. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (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) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT, the main determinant for notability here. I want to believe, but I'm not convinced that the linked articles are RS that would count for notability. (Also, see WP:VG's RS talk page for previous discussion.) czar · · 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources; how we always establish the WP:GNG. The "Exclusive Interviews" argument is extremely weak, not only is that not a rationale I've ever seen work, but come on, every other fansite on the internet gets "exclusive" interviews/content; that doesn't make them notable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alexa rank is similar to WP:GHITS in that it could bolster notability, but not create it. The Google Book hit sourced provides a trivial, one paragraph mention. Other three sources are primary. WP:GOODFAITH creation, but it just doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. --Teancum (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a couple blog-type sources that come up in a web search, but their reliability is doubtful. There is a book source here, but it's literally one sentence, and far from enough on its own to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Aside from a couple trivial mentions in French sources, all news results are primary; they're the site itself. Doesn't meet the relevant criteria, unfortunately. I can't see where it could be merged. --Batard0 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:01, 30 October 2012 (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.