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.
This article is about a website and does not provide any information as to why the subject matter is important. If its deleted, don't forget to remove all the redirects leading to it. FileÉireann22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank over 600,000. From the article, it seems their best trait is that the site doesn't crash as much as it used to. Fan196722:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try clicking the little blue arrow pointing to the right at the the bottom of the page. Are you sure there are 129,000 results? Maybe the SEO thing ain't working out as well as you thought. --Calton | Talk00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's included in the industry's leading reviews compilation websites, how is the website not well known? If it is well known, it meets #3.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkjose (talk • contribs)
I hope you revise this after I showed you that there are over 129,000 links excluding the pgnx.net domain. There are link from hundreds of domains. Why are you so interested in this particular entry being removed? Thinkjose16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so interested in this particular entry NOT being removed? Hint: playing the paranoia card isn't particularly helpful to your cause.
So, basically you ran out of actual reasons so you've resorted to falsely accusing me? SEOs? 96 unique hits? Come on. It's included in various aggregation websites, it's quoted extensively, and it has been association with corporations such as Alienware. There are much worse entries Calton. Pick a better fight. Thinkjose02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is definitely appears non-notable (as a site) but there are 998 mentions of it (mainly) on other gaming sites - on copied reviews. I.E. as the article claims it seems to have some importance as a syndicated review source. RichFarmbrough 08:34 28 June2006 (GMT).
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.