288:
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. Knowledge (XXG) 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. -
391:, 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.
432:
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. -
287:
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
195:
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.
414:
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.
132:
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.
507:, 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s standards because of secondary sourcing (
235:
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
125:
180:
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. -
462:
368:
449:
243:
17:
225:
1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
487:
241:
49:
92:
87:
96:
535:
36:
79:
292:
184:
137:
201:
171:
231:
534:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
490:. "Besides being used as a source a couple of times--" Stop. Your rationale is false and full of inaccuracies.
445:
229:
193:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
289:
245:
181:
134:
516:
437:
486:
Google news search lights up like a
Christmas tree. PC World, Wired, Ars Technica, Kotaku, Joystiq. Shit,
495:
441:
278:
239:
154:
398:
197:
167:
520:
499:
491:
477:
422:
404:
380:
356:
321:
295:
282:
258:
205:
187:
175:
158:
140:
83:
61:
512:
350:
315:
57:
508:
473:
376:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
305:
300:
You're not trying to claim that the article should be deleted because it is not considered a
274:
254:
150:
340:
270:
218:
393:
301:
344:
309:
53:
469:
372:
113:
336:
250:
416:
75:
67:
48:, the reliability of the website itself should be addressed elsewhere (
343:
as providing in-depth coverage via multiple independent sources.
528:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
120:
109:
105:
101:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
538:). No further edits should be made to this page.
463:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
166:I believe this website is in fact notable.
461:: This debate has been included in the
367:: This debate has been included in the
335:— the first two sources referenced by
249:It is obvious VG Chartz is notable.--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
369:list of video game related deletions
433:Anonymous, 18 November 2008 21:52
24:
1:
521:05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
500:16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
488:even the NPD hates their guts
478:16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
423:15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
405:15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
381:14:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
357:06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
322:06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
296:05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
283:05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
259:04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
206:04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
188:03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
176:03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
159:03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
147:Delete with extreme prejudice
141:02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
62:02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
341:general notability guideline
555:
452:) 02:52, 19 November 2008
238:These meet the criterion.
228:These meet the criterion.
531:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
306:WikiProject Video games
290:A Link to the Past
182:A Link to the Past
135:A Link to the Past
44:The result was
480:
466:
454:
440:comment added by
383:
339:seem to meet the
50:non-admin closure
546:
533:
467:
457:
453:
434:
420:
401:
396:
363:
353:
347:
318:
312:
123:
117:
99:
34:
554:
553:
549:
548:
547:
545:
544:
543:
542:
536:deletion review
529:
435:
418:
399:
394:
351:
345:
316:
310:
302:reliable source
215:definitely keep
198:ChildofMidnight
168:ChildofMidnight
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
552:
550:
541:
540:
524:
523:
502:
481:
455:
442:66.220.246.175
426:
425:
408:
407:
385:
384:
360:
359:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
223:
222:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
161:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
551:
539:
537:
532:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
513:Axem Titanium
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
464:
460:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
431:
428:
427:
424:
421:
413:
410:
409:
406:
403:
402:
397:
390:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
358:
354:
348:
342:
338:
334:
331:
323:
319:
313:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
294:
291:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:
244:
242:
240:
236:
233:
232:
230:
226:
220:
216:
213:
207:
203:
199:
194:
192:This article
191:
190:
189:
186:
183:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
136:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
530:
527:
504:
483:
458:
429:
411:
392:
388:
364:
332:
266:
248:
237:
234:
227:
224:
214:
163:
146:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
484:Strong Keep
436:—Preceding
308:, are you?
267:Strong Keep
151:Kung Fu Man
149:per nom.--
492:SashaNein
470:• Gene93k
164:Weak keep
76:VG Chartz
68:VG Chartz
450:contribs
438:unsigned
346:MuZemike
311:MuZemike
126:View log
54:Icewedge
509:OH WATE
373:MrKIA11
93:protect
88:history
337:Kukule
293:(talk)
275:Claude
271:WP:WEB
251:Kukule
219:WP:WEB
185:(talk)
138:(talk)
121:delete
97:delete
400:shtak
395:Pagra
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
517:talk
505:Keep
496:talk
474:talk
459:Note
446:talk
430:Keep
419:ASEM
412:Keep
389:Keep
377:talk
365:Note
352:talk
333:Keep
317:talk
279:talk
269:per
255:talk
217:Per
202:talk
172:talk
155:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
511:).
468:--
465:.
304:by
52:).
519:)
498:)
476:)
448:•
415:--
379:)
371:.
355:)
320:)
281:)
273:--
257:)
204:)
174:)
157:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
515:(
494:(
472:(
444:(
417:M
375:(
349:(
314:(
277:(
253:(
221:,
200:(
170:(
153:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.