Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Clearly snowing (NAC} (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review

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

This website doesn't appear to meet the requirements for notability namely: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Looking at the references it would seem that Wikipedia Review is only really mentioned in passing, it is not the principal subject of any of these references.

Given that this article has only really been the subject of one AfD back in 2005 which resulted in delete and was only restored via a deletion review in 2008. It could stand a debate as to whether it really meets with the WP:WEB guidelines. Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run... (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Many of the references are primary sources (WP itself or internet archive versions of it), and it does seem true that most, if not all, of the secondary sources just give passing mentions. I didn't see any articles that were primarily about WR. No more notable than Wikitruth, which was deleted a while ago. Night Ranger (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian, The Register, and the Palo Alto Research Center satisfy thr threshold of WP:WEB. All in all, especially considering that the nominator created 1 article last June, then nothing til a few middling edits today before the nomination, a very ill-advised, bad-faith nomination. Quackity-quack. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... WR is briefly mentioned in those reliable sources but the articles aren't actually about WR. I'm not sure these three sources pass the threshold of trivial passing mentions. Night Ranger (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep. What coverage there is here would seem to meet the WP:WEB idea that articles about websites should be more than just guides and must describe achievements, impact and historical significance. The depth of coverage really is poor though. JoolsRun (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they're having a good time chatting about this discussion at Wikipedia Review... oh wait, maybe not. In any case, whether you like them or not, there's a decent case that the site meets WP:WEB. It certainly hasn't gotten tons of coverage, but in addition to the sources Tarc provides above, this and this are more than trivial mentions, in my opinion. Not that something need not be the main topic of the source material to qualify as "Significant coverage". (Keep) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per refs found by Tarc, appears to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some risk of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, also the wrong time to be having the debate until the ___domain name saga is cleared up. If the site has gone kaput, the article could be nominated again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article shouldn't be nominated again just because the website is taken down. Whether or not an article subject ceases to exist has nothing to do with whether it has achieved notability, because notability isn't temporary. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information: Wikipedia Review lives!--Scott Mac 10:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or at least some IP would have us believe it "lives," which is completely irrelevant to its notability. Notability is not temporary, and Wikipedia is not limited to being a directory of organizations which are still in operation. Many defunct movements and publications satisfy notability, by having adequate sourcing in reliable secondary sources. Edison (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information: In a manner of speaking, at least. Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the ___domain name, giving the site a headache on what to do next.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP 184.172.174.94 claiming to be the current platform of Wikipedia Review is not a reliable source, and claims made there fail verifiability. Anyone could create a spoof site, or a mirror of old postings, with a couple of updates about present doings, or it could be the action of some would-be successor or splinter faction. The operators of W.R. could renew their registration of the official site, or a reliable secondary source could write about its resurrection, but this primary IP source does not merit inclusion in the article and should not be accepted here as evidence of anything. Edison (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors here who are visiting www.wikipediareview.com and claiming it is down are not a reliable source, and any claims they are making fail WP:V and WP:NOR. Anyone could make that up. Unless there is a reliable secondary source saying Wikipedia review is down, then we have to discount that information.--Scott Mac 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This view seems inconsistent with the article long having used as references six links to earlier versions of the same WR site. When the reference cited in the article as the official URL, www.wikipediareview.com, is clicked, it displays a message "NOTICE:This ___domain name expired on 1/16/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion. WELCOME TO: wikipediareview.com." That is presently cited as reference number 6. Don't the old refs to WR then also fail WP:V and WP:NOR? How can you pick and choose which versions of the WR site are reliable sources and which are O.R.? Edison (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage mentioned by Tarc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary: if the site is shut down and never returns, that has no effect on the previous coverage in reliable sources such as the articles listed by Mark Arsten and Tarc above. 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Tarc. The fact it is currently down doesn't remove its notability. You really can 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sprechen Sie Delete Per Nom as non-notable navel-gazing cruft and this from someone who frequents that site even! Lol! --WR Reader (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone seems to have forgotten {{ARSnote}} (or maybe I'm just blind). It's been tagged with {{rescue}}, folks. --N Y Kevin @899, i.e. 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability, once established as it has been, does not go away when a website goes down. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I looked at the likely sources, and 5, 15, and 17 (If I remember the numbers correctly) constitute multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, passing the GNG. The fact that there are a bunch of primary sources there changes that not one bit. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the sources satisfy the GNG to me. Not much else to say. Silver seren^C 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable news sources: [1], [2]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 21 January 2012 (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.