Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reef Central
- 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reef Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Except for the non-impressive Alexa rank, there are no third-party sources, and no clear evidence of notability. Rami R 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete It sounds like a lovely website and magazine, but it's short on independent reliable coverage as required for WP:WEB. I'm saying "weak" delete because it does get a mention in a few articles [1] [2], but they are behind paywalls; from the Google News listings they sound like passing mentions but I can't be sure. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's short on intependent coverage, but it is also not a website that is not going to be getting huge coverage outside of its own field; and I'm not sure if that is a reason or not to keep it. It is listed as the 13th largest internet forum on wikipedias page, List of internet forums. I would hate to see it go simply because there is not enough coverage of it, it is the largest and most well known forum inside a specific usergroup. Beaun (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's on that list doesn't make it the 13th largest. It's the 13th largest ON THAT LIST, which can easily be edited. I'm sure there are hundreds of forums that are larger. The guy who runs the site [ personal attack removed. Rami R 09:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC) ]. He updates the # of posts/threads stats on his site's page every week or two, and he probably put his site on that list. I can edit it off if I really wanted to, not by just removing it for no reason, but by finding other forums with more posts to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.118.140 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You almost seem to have some sort of personal vendetta gainst this website. What exactly is the reason NOT to have it as part of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.108.34 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The site does not meet any of the criteria listed on WP:WEB. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:10, 14 April 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.