Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock's Backpages

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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock's Backpages[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:WEB. The sources at the bottom, though from irrefutably reliable sources, amount to:

A placement in a totally arbitrary "Top 25" list.
A broken link.
A short article on the site's 5th anniversary.
One-sentence mention amongst a list of several other websites.
A couple paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly but this is still in the context of several other websites, not about this site exclusively.
Incidental coverage from the Guardian that's mostly an interview with the creators.

A further search on Google News turned up no further sourcing than this. So in short, the site appears to fail all three criteria of WP:WEB, to wit:

The web coverage is limited almost entirely to "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", one-sentence mentions and/or material that is not independent (such as the aforementioned interview).
It has not won any sort of award. Getting on some criterion-free "top 25 music websites" lists ≠ notability.
It is not distributed or managed by a more notable website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate how you think this is sufficient? I just gave a rather elaborate rundown of how the coverage is not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I disagree with you.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paste article and Andy Farquarson's Guardian article both give significant coverage and they're both clearly reliable sources, the others give added weight to claims of encyclopedic merit.--Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) A Library Journal article is partially visible via Google Books ([1]).--Michig (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly is not "a couple". Quoting the subject of an article extensively in the course of eight paragraphs in The Guardian, dubbed "mostly an interview", is quite rightly not proscribed anywhere in WEB. Anarchangel (talk) 11:56, 8 February 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.