Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airgates

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airgates

[edit]
Airgates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB. The sources:

The page presently reads as a PR blurb about a non-notable site. Was previously deleted under CSD A7, however, was recreated with the claim of a Shorty nomination, so A7 no long applies. I've already told the author that if reliable sources appear, then I have no issue withdrawning the nomination. Ishdarian 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There has evidently been much effort expended to source this article. If the above is the best they could come up with... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering that this article is not well sourced and NPOV is bad, it should be deleted. Citrusbowler (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am infuriated that a clearly notable site is being rejected from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to succeed in its aim to grow and cover every topic possible, then behaviour like this is both irritating and hindering. Airgates.co.uk is a website about theme park news. How notable are you expecting it to be?! When we're thinking in terms of such a small and precise field, you can't expect to see mentions on big news corporations etc. Many of these sites are extremely notable in the field of theme park news. I don't know what more you'd expect from these sources, each one proves the point that is mentioned in the article (there is no point arguing against the fact Airgates came 16th, as the article clearly states it came 16th in the world, 2nd in the UK).
You have said that 3 of my sources are directories. The first and second are, but they give the concise description of Airgates that I referenced in my article. The third is not a directory but, as the site in question describes, a list of "sites that we believe stand out above the crowd". It gives each site a personal review and the review has been referenced in my 'reputation' section of the article. A valid source.
My article said how many views the page got each day, I referenced it with the information about page views. Why is this an issue?
As far as the trivial mentions are concerned, they both prove the point that Airgates is a source for news outlets such as Screamscape (one of the most famous theme park sites on the web) and coaster-net.
And the SPS mentions you point out give information that, once again, I referenced in my article.
I'm trying to make two points here:
a) All the sources are valid. While you can argue that being 16th in the Shorty Awards is 'irrelevant', how else can I source the statement 'Airgates came 16th'?
b) Airgates is one of the most notable sites in its field. You can't compare it in notability to BBC News or Huffington Post because they aren't in the same field of reporting.unsigned comment by User:RDN1F (User_talk:RDN1F) 22:57, 6 June 2013.
  • "Notable" on Wikipedia has a specific meaning, which is explained at the general notability guidelines. To be notable, a subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The words I've italicized are explained in more detail in the guidelines: please follow the link to find out exactly what they mean (in particular, Facebook isn't usually reliable). There are two uses of sources, which shouldn't be confused. One is to provide evidence for the claims made in the article; the other is to provide evidence of notability. For example, the site's own website can be used as evidence for non-controversial facts (e.g., that it's a travel site) but it doesn't provide evidence of notability (because it's not independent). Bear in mind that notability is not relative to any particular field. My own website is clearly the most notable website in the field of websites about me but that has no bearing on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please also note that it is not "your article": once you posted it to Wikipedia, you essentially gave it to the world. Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:GNG. The sources are unreliable and/or directories; I have deleted the two that were articles because they didn't contain the information they were cited for (both said that Airgates had carried some piece of news but did not say the site has a reputation for breaking news or that it aims to be a resource for other sites). We're talking about a website that gets fifty views a day and sixteenth place from seven votes from the entire world population: that isn't going to generate the sort of coverage we need to establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airgates&oldid=1137546912"