Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination)

Universe Today

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

This article about a website provides no indication of coverage in independent sources that would provide notability. I was able to find news listings from the site and descriptions of it in non-independent material (e.g., in the book the site distributed), but only a few passing mentions otherwise. Survived AFD in 2006 with arguments based on its Alexa rankings and the fact that it was mentioned in blogs -- stuff that would not be considered good arguments under current AFD standards. RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting, but non-notable site. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similar to, but slightly smaller than and less commercial-aerospace focussed than Space.com. Perfectly notable - for example it was mentioned just today on the Planetary Society's website in an article on how news stories on space topics are identified and brought to the public. Iridia (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think there are enough references to it in Google Books and Google Scholar to qualify (search for universetoday.com), even if I can't find one in-depth (didn't try very hard, too may links to go through). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site is used very often as a source in Wikipedia (61 articles link to this page, a lot more mention it). It definitely meet WP:RS. So for me, that's something notable. Others may disagree, but I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely know what they are dealing with. Also per Iridia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those talking about it being "mentioned" or "references to it", I would point out that our notability guidelines call for significant coverage, not just mentions. I have yet to see an independent source that covered this site in any significant way. As for its use as a source, there are numerous sources that are not considered notable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have dozens of articles about academic journals that don't have significant coverage in the sense of one or two big, third-party articles about them, but have significant coverage in the sense of many references citing them. The latter sense of significant coverage is in fact the accepted one in academia, and Universe Today deals in mostly academic matters. The idiot's guide version of that in WP:GNG works for some but not all topics, which is why that is a guideline. We also have exceptions like WP:PROF and others. This is clearly a site notable in the real world. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability; no discussion of the site in reliable sources. For journals, we expect at least appearance in standard indexes, and preferably more. If this web site had won some kind of award, as Badastronomy.com has, then it would certainly cross the line, but it hasn't. In fact this article is just an ad for the site. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O RLY? [1] [2] It's just a failure to search. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of those news stories seem to be entirely independent of Fraser Cain. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]