Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Game Reviewer

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. czar 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Game Reviewer

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Non-notable video game review website. The1337gamer (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Page reads like a puff piece and contains references to blogs but there are still enough sources illustrating some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: Where are these references that illustrate notability? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate further because I think your assessment is poor. Currently, not a single reference on the article contributes to notability as outlined at WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage about the subject, Indie Game Reviewer, in any of these sources. The majority of sources are not reliable or independent of Indie Game Reviewer. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1: Alexa rank – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 2: Community group created by Indie Game Reviewer on a raptr – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 3: Dead link and just another community group created by Indie Game Reviewer – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 4: Dead link, Archived version says nothing about Indie Game Reviewer, they just repost an excerpt of the website's review, along with many others. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 5: Dead link, Archived version says nothing about Indie Game Reviewer, they just repost an excerpt of the website's review, along with many others. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 6: No coverage about Indie Game Reviewer itself, they just cite Indie Game Reviewer for information on a completely different topic. – doesn't contributes to notability
Ref 7: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 8: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 9: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 10: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 11: Dead link, source is user generated wiki anyway so it's not reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 12: Not independent of subject – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 13: self-published blogpost, not a reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 14: no mention of Indie Game Reviewer anywhere, the source is a game developer's website so there wouldn't significant coverage on Indie Game Reviewer there anyway. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 15: self-published post, indiedb is not reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 16: Not coverage about Indie Game Review, this is just a game developer's website that has pulled a quote from a review. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 17: dead link, Archived version has no coverage about Indie Game Reviews, it's just a publisher promoting their work by mentioning that Indie Game Reviewer looked at it. – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 18: Database of reviews – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 19: Database of reviews – doesn't contribute to notability
Ref 20: Dead link, source is user generated database anyway so not a reliable source – doesn't contribute to notability

Delete - I've stricken through my original vote. I suppose I should have taken more time to go through each reference, none of which are reliable. I must have done a brief skim of the page's sources and assumed they were. That's my mistake. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per The1337gamer's TKO of the references. --Soetermans. T / C 01:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 18 February 2016 (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.