Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardHub.com

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. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CardHub.com[edit]

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

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_19#CardHub.com

With an Alexa Traffic Rank of 224,938 it is fair to say that this website does not meet WP:WEB. bender235 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't really care about alexa ranking, I'm more of a source kinda guy, and the article has a large number of references from reliable sources that appear to meet general notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see Alexa rank in WP:WEB, notability is about coverage, not use or popularity. That said, alot of those references either are unrelated to the notability of CardHub, or are only referencing a study by CardHub. None the less, it appears there are enough valid notability sources to pass the notability threshold. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a closer look at the references shows a lot aren't that great or independent, but there's at least one CNN article with in depth coverage and a number of others about a study by CardHub. Seems sufficient to me.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample sources available, as I mentioned in the deletion review. Glad to see the article is back now, sources added. Dream Focus 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Although there are plenty of sources, I have to point out that many do not provide levels of "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. For example, many of the sources from source #18 through #33, as of the version I am viewing ([1]), only mention CardHub.com as a source of statistics, without in-depth coverage of CardHub.com itself and what it actually does. In my opinion, these sources do not "address the subject directly in detail". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with what you are saying, in principal, but it would appear that CardHub.com is very frequently used as a source of statistics, and many examples are given in the citations. That alone speaks volumes about the company and their notability, when taken as a whole, as many RS qualified sources consider them reliable enough (and in essence, notable enough) to quote. By itself, perhaps not enough, but taken as a whole it would appear to bolster the notability of the company. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (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.