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. There is consensus, albeit weak, that the sources in question do not constitute substantive independent coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VideoGamer.com[edit]

VideoGamer.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

34,476th place on Alexa rank. No significant history to speak of - the website has always been around that number. No significant independent coverage to speak of, pretty much all sources in the references section are about specific journalists leaving this website and such. The body of the article itself speaks about some random facts discussing some unknown journalists joining/leaving the website. This don't belong on an encyclopaedia I don't really under how this article even survived up until now. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The site is mentioned in many articles in Gamesindustry.biz. I would err on the side of saying it's notable since it seems to be pretty prolific in its coverage, if not one of the most popular sites._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's number 34,476th on the Alexa's rankings. Compare that to Gamespot.com which is number 546 or IGN which is 326th. If you ask me, any website that's beyond 10,000th+ place and which isn't a specific regional website is way unimportant for wikipedia. It definetively is not a "one of the most popular websites". Karl.i.biased (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popularity isn't an indicator of notability, see WP:RANK. Even if the site shut down, it would still probably qualify for an article. Here are some articles that would qualify as significant mentions in reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4]_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There does not seem to be a significant treatment in other reliable sources. In the list above, there's an interview, (basically) a press release, some attempted controversy. I guess you could make a stub about the topic, but it might end up being a perma-stub. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is more of an article than a straight up interview. While there are quotes from the staff, there is also a ton of information about the site that was written by the article's author. The 2nd is not a press release, but a news article written by someone besides the company. It's definitely enough to create a Start-class article at least, though it might not go beyond that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The Vice source is good, but the rest aren't significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to meet GNG to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks nn to me, refs are weak, appears to be a news aggregator requiring minimal human input. Szzuk (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While considered a reliable source (WP:VG/RS), this article is just a badly written summarization of their history. No reason to keep it in its current state. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:33, 9 March 2018 (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.