Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livability.com

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. Needs cleanup as well to remove promotive tone. Please use references uncovered during the AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livability.com

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

Article fails WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Livability.com. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and weak trivial coverage or mentions failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This nomination appears to be based upon sources that were only in the article, rather than upon the actual availabiliy of reliable sources. Please read WP:NRVE: Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is passing WP:GNG:

Significant coverage from International Business Times - Where are the Most Livable Cities?
This article contains significant content about livability.com's methods regarding their research and criterion: [1]
Short article from Ultimate Outdoors Radio, and this article that discusses a livability.com's study Burlington Ranked as a Top College Town
News articles about the website's various city rankings [2], [3], [4], [5].

— More sources are available, but just these alone qualify the topic's notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a Google news search of "livability.com", and got 35 hits. WP:CORPDEPTH states: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. This standard has been met. NJ Wine 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs)

Delete with Hu12. Article about an "ordinary" website. In my eyes far away from beeing notable enough to be mentioned in WP. -- Dewritech (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What would a non-ordinary website be comprised of then? More seriously, this !vote likely won't contribute much weight in the result of this AfD, because it includes no analysis of the sources demonstrated in this discussion that qualify topic notability. Topic notability in Wikipedia is based upon sources, not subjective judgments about the style of websites. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can tell the "references" are merely citing this publisher in pretty common-types of "best city for X" style articles that come up all the time. But they don't seem to address the subject of the article itself, that is the website. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please read [6] for starters. Significant coverage about Livability.com's practices, procedures and methodologies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't find it really notable on the first sight. But anyhow, this is enough to get notability. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Still no consensus to keep the article—last relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spout _ 23:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it fails WP: WEB, it meets WP: GNG, as it has had significant media coverage. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly, per Northamerica. Needs to be gutted as it's overtly promotional, but there are adequate sources available and so it passes GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, but I don't really feel great about it. Agree that it needs a thorough rewrite. But GNG is the trump, here - it passes, if barely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 21 June 2012 (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.