Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topbargains.com.au

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 delete. Clearly not meeting WP:WEB, even taking into account WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topbargains.com.au[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim to fame is Alexis ranks them 1009 in Australia. ttonyb (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent coverage not significant enough to pass WP:WEB.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only two sources I'd consider viable are Reader's Digest and news.com.au. The problem I have with these articles is that the website is only mentioned briefly, and these articles do not make this website the primary focus of the article - news.com.au only points at the website and mentions what it is amidst at least a dozen such sites, and Reader's Digest mentions it in conjunction with three others insofar as rebates are concerned. The others are just statistics and that is NOT enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mention in the only reliable sources that note its existence. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I created this page and seems like a whole war has started. My only concern is that standards being applied on deletion of this page are not applied on a range of other website pages in Australian Websites category. If having 35,000 members is not significant, nothing really is. The Feedburner RSS chicklet on the site independently shows 21,000 RSS subscribers on the site. A exactly similar site OZbargain.com.au is listed here under Australia with absolutely NO references at all - so much for the dual standards of some people here. This is not the Wikipedia I have known for years - please apply consistent and reasonable standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only passing mentions in sites cited. Featured in Readers Digest? "Other sites worth considering include: www.ozbargain.com.au, www.topbargains.com.au, www.rewardlover.com and www.moneybackco.com". I do agree that Ozbargains isn't much different and have tagged it for speedy deletion. But here Bill has doesn't mean Ben gets. Provide us with real independent coverage and help to change our minds. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozbargains appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia now. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a top 1000 site is significant. The site reach is broader than major banks based on Alexa ranks and has verifiable 20,000 RSS subscribers. I would consider that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.193.210 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per WP:ALEXA, "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it." In addition, the number of RSS subscribers has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that a large number of subscribers has no bearing notability. Also you must not look at media mentions or RSS subscribers or membership as isolated facts. When looked at them together, they show significance. However, I realize that no matter what, this will be deleted as it has become an ego problem for user Ttonybl who would like it deleted. I am new to Wikipedia but not has been the best of experiences. Thanks anyways for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that, despite being new to Wikipedia, you believe you know Ttonyb1 well enough to know that having this article deleted is an "ego problem" for him. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and in my experience one's comments are more likely to be taken seriously if one assumes good faith. Accusing editors of wrong intentions simply encourages other editors to see you as unconstructive. As for the reasons you give for keeping the article, it is certainly true that such matters as number of subscribers do have a bearing on significance in some ways, but they do not have any bearing on Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest at least reading the general notability guideline, and having a look at the guidelines on notability for organizations and companies and reliable sources to see what sort of thing is required. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is also relevant, but to be realistic there is a limit to how much a new reader can be expected to read and take in. If, when you have had a look at these guidelines, you can find the sort of evidence of notability required, I am sure that the article will be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am learning on use Wikipedia as I go. Have added a notability tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.17.56 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 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.