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. Shimeru (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameRatio[edit]

GameRatio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unremarkable video game website with no assertion of notability; I can't find significant coverage in any reliable source. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough sources have already been given. Google search does not mean much in Wikipedia. The website has the same caliber as Metacritic, MobyGames, and TopTenReviews. --Majorphase (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC) — Majorphase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The article's references are not reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please see WP:RS and WP:WEB. — Rankiri (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Reach Out to the Truth 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any WP:RS coverage either. — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided in the article are enough to guarantee the notability.--Sesu Primer (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC) — Sesu Primer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please check up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Or, just look at the three citations provided ([1], [2], and [3]) and try explaining what you could possibly see as significant about them. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom - I can't find anything that shows meets WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find anything that covers WP:GNG either. --Teancum (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (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.