Someone posted this in the Talk page:

This website is well-known within the gaming community for fabricating sales numbers. It is not known by what method the site's operators conduct their sales research, or indeed whether they even conduct any research at all. Their numbers are just as likely to be right as anyone else's guess. However, large media outlets such as the New York Times apparently have quoted their numbers in the absence of credible sources of information, leading to the impression that they are a legitimate market research organization. The fact that most video game enthusiasts do not believe their numbers carry any weight at all should be reflected in the article. Let me clarify that I believe that although the site claims to perform research such as tracking sales data at retailers, these claims are just false. Their numbers are often off by huge margins (i.e. 100% or more). Only one person is known to be responsible for the site's numbers - its owner - and he has no credentials except being a gamer who follows sales numbers.  

We can easily use the March NPD numbers to prove him wrong. 

Ha, Nli10, who claims to be an analyst, is going through the talk page downplaying Vgchartz at every opportunity. I think the members should take only a short moment of our time, sign up for Wikipedia if we haven't already, and defend the article from the hate squads.

Argh!

Someone did a huge vandalism attack on the article, making the controversy section obviously a bad idea. 

It's pretty good, but the controversy part is a bit too harsh.

Just for the record, I removed the "Controversy" section because the citation provided for the section was not to a reliable source. btw, good job with the article guys. It's very well written (and cited!) compared to many articles on similar websites I have seen.

You better defend your vgchartz wiki page. It is now marked for deletion.

Someone should mark wikipedia for deletion as its non-notable.

I only see one delete.

but bias confirmed

We are kind of protrayed in a negative light now in the intro paragraph. Im not sure that stuff belongs in our intro. =\

well, the thread title is deceptive, but nice bump I don't have a wiki account though.