Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Gamer Zone

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 Delete, having interviews with people is great, and something you'd expect any reasonable gaming site to have, but it's just not useful to list every site here that has ever interviewed someone notable. The size of the community and the general traffic of the site itself have failed to impress the people taking part in this discussion. Just because some people happen to like a site doesn't mean it's necessary to write about it here. - Bobet 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Gamer Zone

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB Wildthing61476 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Does not WP:WEB refer to content, rather than a website? It is true that Total Gamer Zone is host to a forum, but it is not limited to its forum, despite its large member base. It is also a Game News website, a wallpaper and graphic repository, a forum, a game review site, and a place to set up online matchups. Theirfore, I beleive that WP:WEB does not apply in this case, and that this Deletion should not take place. MasterIkrit 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" I think Totalgamerzone deserves to stay, it is a growing site and every single website deserves to be recognized. They have had really good interviews and clearly put there time on making the site. I will be adding this site to my favorites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.109.169 (talk • contribs)


  • Comment The site has an Alexa rank of 2,418,324. Also quoting WP:WEB "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia." (Bold for emphasis.) The site just is NOT NOTABLE enough for Wikipedia currently. Wildthing61476 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


  • It's one of the guidelines that's used in checking notability for a website however as "retarded" as you think it is. Wildthing61476 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please provide a link stating that Wikipedia requires a certain rank on Alexa.com to be entered onto the site?
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because I don't think an admittedly "fairly small website" that's been around for less than a year can be notable. I agree with people who say it fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank is important, but it isn't everything. This website is just too new to get listed, I think. Allisonmontgomery69 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Who said WP:WEB was retarded? or was it edited out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterIkrit (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment The person who made the statement removed it according to the page history. Also to the authors, I checked out your site, and I LIKE your site, and wish you the best of luck, it's just right now the site is just too new to be listed. Wildthing61476 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep very nice site I might add. Kalciner
  • Delete Nice looking site, but too small and too new per the author's own writing. No prejiduce on recreating the article in the future if the site grows in importance. Resolute 05:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Four months old, 200 members, not yet notable per WP:WEB. --Wine Guy Talk 18:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to be very active, up to date news, relevant features, fast growing community if it went from 200 to 221 members in 2 days. Stiffler52 13:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question How many members would be consindered enough? How high of a ranking on Alexa.com is considered high enough? Where are the ground rules? I believe this site is very relevant to the gaming community and should remain. Stiffler52 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    The assertion that "this site is very relevant to the gaming community" may be true, however that does not necessarily mean it is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read the criteria here for the "ground rules" used by WP editors to determine the notability of a website. Membership and Alexa rank are not official criteria, but they can be helpful when there are no verifiable references. For example, if and when the site has multiple reviews published in reliable and reputable sources, then it should pass muster here. Until then, Wikipedia is not an internet guide, nor is it a crystal ball. --Wine Guy Talk 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Before the Web notability changed, a site needed either an Alexa rank of 10,000 or better, or a forum with over 5,000 members. -- ReyBrujo 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You do realize that Alexa.com is a highly flawed system, as it only recognizes internet explorer users and not Netscape, Opera, and Firefox? IE is used by less internet savvy and the less internet savvy usually do not visit gaming sites.Stiffler52 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I was not the one who created that guide, and maybe that is why it was removed. However, Internet Explorer is being used in over 85% of the computers in the world. -- ReyBrujo 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well it appears as though the site has moved up 600 000 spots on alexa.com to 1.8 million from 2.4 million in a matter of days. Stiffler52 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Maybe due the high amount of links to reviews that are being inserted into Wikipedia articles about games? -- ReyBrujo 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very active. Notable interviews. Quickly moving up alexa. 68.12.187.34 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The website I work on is actually in the six digits, gets review copies, gets news straight from developers and it isn't nearly notable enough for its own entiry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In response to ReyBrujo: not exactly, we have seen a steady increase in hits in the days prior to the posting of the Wikipedia article.-the mole- 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is pure advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I am a user of the site, I do not agree. We are not asking anyone to come to the site, we are not saying it is the best ever or anything even remotely similar, so I honestly fail to see the logic behind the phrase "This is pure advertisement."-the mole- 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would someone explain to me why we are not allowed to post our reviews of games as an external link or review of games that are already in the system? ReyBrujo continues to remove any links to reviews of the games that we have given. Saying that information is non-notable. I can understand you saying that our sight is non-notable, it is very new, and has not had time to grow, however information and reviews of games are immediate things, simply created after a game is created, how can these be considered non-notable? If there is some guidlines for the editing or removal of external links to further information on a subject, please post a link to such guidlines, if there is not, should this user be reported for outright vandalism? MasterIkrit 05:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hi there. Wikipedia accepts contributions from every user, however some do not fit Wikipedia. Imagine if people adds every single review from every single site about a game. The first External link style guide about occasionally acceptable states that, for albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. That is the closest for games, it is currently being discussed if general reviews should be accepted. Having reviews from IGN, GameSpot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, 1UP.com and meta reviews like GameRankings and Metacritic, having the review of a non notable site with a forum of around 200 members and virtually no Alexa rank is not acceptable. Also, massively adding hyperlinks without discussing them in the talk page of the articles to see if there is consensus for adding them can be considered spam. Hope that makes it clear. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe I need to clarify that, when we talk about Non notable, we are referring to Wikipedia standards like WP:WEB, which may or may not acknowledge other kind of notability. In example, the daughter of an actress may be notable by public standard, but an article about a newly born baby, unless inheriting a notability title like Count or Duke, is usually considered non notable. It is not an offensive term, but people new to Wikipedia may find it not appropriated. -- ReyBrujo 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: So by your own words, games that have no listed reviews would be fine to add our reviews to, that is funny, because the majority of the games to which I added reviews did not already have them. Also I find that notable intellectual work, such as reviews and along with other things, does not have to be created from something, someone, or someplace in and of itself notable, in order to have reference to a community or the world. I do not think any kind of content should be decided to be non-notable, simply because where it came from is not-notable. Using your own example, that would be like calling a book or some other form of intellectual property non-notable simply because it came from a non-notable person, while calling another book or work of intellectual property notable simply because it came from a notable person. I would equate judging our reviews of games as non-notable simply becuase our site is considered by YOU to be non-notable to be judging a book by the way you, personally, see the cover....MasterIkrit 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I never said that. I was referring to the fact that, existing IGN, GameSpot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, etc, sites with a long life and proved reliability, there is little need of new reviewers. See the sixth guideline. If you think your views are notable, state in the talk page that you are going to add a review from your site. I have helped clean other articles before. We can't include something just because it may be notable in the future, because it has potential, or because "minority views" need also to be included in Wikipedia. Also, I am not the only one considering your site non notable, nor I am the only one considering your reviews non notable.[1][2] -- ReyBrujo 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Maybe it will be notable in the future, but as of now it's not. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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.