Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book Backwards

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book Backwards

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

Non-notable website/magazine. Site was created very recently, too young to have become notable. Despite much effort, no reliable sources establishing notability have been found. Does not meet WP:WEB, WP:NJournals, or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable web content. Outranked in the questionable top 50 neuroscience blogs by several other non-notable blogs (e.g. wordpress, blogspot hosting) Jebus989^✰ 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Found this website and thought interesting and worth inclusion. My first wikipedia article though - but thought more notable than other other Literary Magazines, due to this interview with neuroscience editor of this website. Also found this discover article mentioning the neuroscience behind this creative site - both of these links are erased immediately when I include them. Was hoping include these as references and thought it made the site substantially more notable than others, and recent inclusion in list of neuroscience blogs might also contribute to notability. I respect wikipedia and the guidelines if deletion is consensus, but believe it should be kept according to those guidelines - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I removed those links, for the simple reason that this site is not even mentioned in them, so they are absolutely irrelevant for this article. At best, they might show some notability for some of the people behind the site, but that does not make the site notable. I have linked to the applicable notability guidelines in the nomination above, please have a look at them to see what is needed to show notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) Please read the general notability guidelines. None of those links give any claim of notability to the site. Neuroscience, as a field, is of course article worthy (as are glial cells) and the interview possibly goes some way to giving Andrew Koob a claim for notability (though he does not yet have an article). None of them, however, give any reason that this website is, in any way, notable. If a notable person starts a website, it is not inherently notable. If a website writes or publishes about a notable field it, too, does not inherently become notable. You need reliable secondary sources which report on the website itself to warrant an article in this encyclopaedia. Established editor's have tried to inform you this, and have spent time looking for such sources but have not been able to find them. There was a reason, explained to you, that those links were removed; they're not relevant to establishing notability of the website Jebus989^✰ 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks - according to the guidelines, it seems those references are not establishing notability, but I see nothing in the guidelines against including them in an article about a website created by these people, and wonder why they needed to be removed, for my future understanding as I get more involved with wikipedia. I hope the article will be kept simply due to better notability when compared to articles about similar content and websites, but as a novice I am definitely just learning how to contribute to wikipedia - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Recentism plus commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Website is definitely recent, but article not commercial spam. Deletion looks inevitable - sounds like I'll need to think of a different article for wikipedia perpetuity - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Notability has not been shown and so far there is an inherent lack of WP:V. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 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.