Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKNova (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 redirect. Clearly doesn't meet WP:WEB as the sources are just minor mentions, but they do establish it's well-known enough to warrant a redirect. W.marsh 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKNova (2nd nomination)[edit]

Torrent site. Fails WP:WEB with little to no non-trivial coverage. Previous nomination was no consensus, mainly due to citations of Google and Alexa results. The vast majority of Google hits are either trivial in nature or blogs. Not from reliable sources. DarkAudit 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here is the prior discussion. I tend to think that BitTorrent sites may well have to pass fairly high hurdles. This one did at least get a mention in The Guardian, which was apparently added since the prior AfD. FWIW, blogs and other self-published Internet sites may well be reliable sources for Internet related materials. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's become standard practice to consider most blogs and self-published sites to be unreliable in regards to WP:RS. One article doesn't really meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" guideline in WP:WEB. DarkAudit 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:N has been changed recently to no longer require multiple sources in all circumstances. It seems WP:WEB has not been updated to reflect this. UKNova is a well known site, perhaps the best known British torrent site. Guardian article is enough to keep in this instance, I think. JulesH 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if one Guardian article would rise to the level of 'significant'. DarkAudit 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not sure why this is coming up again. The site gets coverage in the national media. Someone has already referenced one article in The Guardian - and there is at least one more in that paper. And here is another one only last week in the Sunday Times link. Nfitz 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that article. UKNova was mentioned, but mostly in passing. "sites like UKNova" doesn't quite pass the non-trivial test. The article wasn't really about UKNova. DarkAudit 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you direct me to the URL for the non-trivial test? I would have thought that if it was written in passing, then the assumption is that many of the audience would be familiar with it. Nfitz 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - it's in WP:WEB:"Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address" That's all the Times article did, point out UKNova as an example. It was not the subject of the article. DarkAudit 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah ... hmm, but the article didn't report the site's Internet address. It simply used the name of the site, on the assumption that people already would know what it was, and how to get to it. Nfitz 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I was ambivalent about how to close this AfD, I have decided to participate in it. The article fails the notability guideline for web content as it is not the subject of coverage in multiple reliable published works. The Sunday Times article is only a trivial reference and the coverage in the Guardian article, though not trivial, is probably more relevant to the particular Doctor Who episode than to the UKNova website. However, this evaluation of the subject's compliance with the notability guideline should be tempered with consideration of the fact that WP:WEB is a guideline and not policy and that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no harm in erring on the side of inclusion at times (especially when the subject is not a living person). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. At present, the website has an Alexa rank of 16372, a decline from the previous AfD, but still impressive as a top 20000 website from among millions.[reply]
Delete - I love posturing as much as the next guy, but it's missing the essential multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. For that, I can't even begin to assess it against the other criteria. 81.104.175.145 03:30, 8 June 2007 (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.