Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActionTrip

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. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActionTrip

Just some website with no independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage demonstrating any notability. Tagged as needing sources since Feb. 2008. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unreferenced. Show me a footnote and I'll consider degree of notability, multiple non-trivial references and then this would start being an article. -Markeer 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): this isn't an open-and-shut case. Take a look at the Alexa rank here and the site analytics here: it's a very popular website. And yes, I know Alexa rank's an argument to avoid, but I do not intend to disregard an obvious indicator of notability just because of an essay that I don't agree with.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a site could be shown reliably to be high traffic that alone would not demonstrate any actual notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A whole lot of people doing something not particularly noteworthy together and not getting noticed for it is still nothing of any note. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Alexa rank is a reasonable indicator of potential notability, but I simply can't find any useful coverage in independent sources to back that notability indication up, and produce a verifiable article. ~ mazca ^t/c 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The tone is dreadful at times and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. However gaming industry is notorious for having wonky sources - most are online and bloglike so have to be weeded through and this is a Eastern-Europe website as well? This would suggest a double layer of systematic bias that I'm reluctant to delete anything over. I would feel more confident if we had someone fluent in both sourcing gaming articles who also is fluent in the languages the potential sources are actually in. At this point I'm more inclines to weak keep based on these issues and the Alexa rankings which remain a good indication of web traffic. I suggest a stay of execution here, a clean-up to wikify, add website infobox and seek translation help although sourcing a gaming website article may not eseem like the most pressing concern. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 20 June 2009 (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.