Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetizen

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. sorry about the relist JForget 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planetizen

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

This article has been previously speedied and keeps reappearing. It is about a web site that has, at best, passing mention in any independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dozens of apparently independent reliable sources describe it as "leading" in its field with no apparent prompting from Planetizen itself. Wired Magazine considers Planetizen's opinions worth reporting here, the Charlotte Observer thinks likewise here (sadly behind a paywall), and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution independently comes to the same conclusion here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Planetizen is a major clearing house of the latest developments on urban planning, and so far represents the broadest inclusion of planning debates on the web (or elsewhere). The Web is full of references to Planetizen articles, going over the past several years. To consider its deletion is unthinkable! Nikos Salingaros 28 March 1020. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikos.salingaros (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because "Planetizen" has a Google hit score of 120,000 (disproving The Uninvited assertion about only passing mention). Because it is a publisher, along with Island Press, of highly topical debates on urban planning issues, e.g. Planetizen's Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning (with some 50 authors from diverse perspectives), and Planetizen's 2009 Guide to Graduate Urban Planning Programs. The Uninvited may not be aware of its influence among professionals, but it is a significant web resource for a small but highly influential population of public planning officials, private urban planning consultants, developers and others who have a strong impact on the shape of development, particularly in the US (but also globally). The fact that few outside the profession understand the significance of developments covered by Planetizen is an argument for keeping the article - not for its deletion. --Michaelmehaffy (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 2 April 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.