Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com (2nd 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pghbridges.com

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

Nonnotable, obscure website. The article, a mix of promotional material and defense of its own existence, contains a claim that an Alexa ranking (1,108,907 as of almost five years ago) establishes notability; whatever the merits of Alexa rankings, it now ranks Pghbridges at 2,172,754. For that matter, the Alexa/Google inward link claims, as well as the commentary after each external link, as well as the entire section on USENET mentions (?!?!?!?) all doth protest too much. The relevance of the links and notability of the website should be pretty inherent, and since this is not the case, notability isn't there.

For that matter, the votes in the previous deletion discussion appear, to me at least, to have been improperly counted. Şłџğģő 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa is totally irrelevant in the best of times. What counts, however, is that outside places use this site as a reference - which implies higher notability than an Alexa rating of whatever does. Prior !votes are also not really relevant. What counts is that people outside WP value this apparently noncommercial website. Collect (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - At first glance I expected to be !voting to delete this, but given the coverage here and here, the real world award it won, and the large number of reliable sources using the site as a reference, I think it does have a modest but real degree of notability. This site is about as notable as web sites about bridges can get. Is that notable enough for wikipedia? I think so. Thparkth (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote this article, about 5 years ago, when I was in my early article building phase, because the site is a good resources for Pittsburgh, PA area bridges. I think it's notable enough to pass muster. But if it's deleted, the important info about the site should be preserved at the Bridge project, because it is used as a source. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user:Collect above. Keristrasza (talk) 15:07, 9 September 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.