Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sfcrowsnest

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 merge to Stephen Hunt (author)#Sfcrowsnest. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sfcrowsnest

Has failed to prove notability for inclusion SpikeJones (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. appears nn. --Bobak (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly, I suspect that any web site that has been around since 1994 is notable. The web was a different place back then to what it is now. There are reliable sources, for instance this one that I was reading only a couple of weeks ago. Was a scifi.com site of the week: [1]. Professional publishers quote reviews from this site on their back covers. This is clearly a notable web site. JulesH (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, apparently it is featured in Mann The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ISBN 1841191779, although I can't find a copy to look at so cannot confirm how much depth is included. JulesH (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was drawn to my attention after I saw a handful of edits by the user who created this article on other articles on my watch list. It has been my observation that link-spam edits like those, when combined with the page creation as here, are often WP:COI related. As for "websites around since 1994", I know of quite a number of long-established, well-regarded in their field, websites that do not appear in WP for various reasons. Time online is not a sign of notability.SpikeJones (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new section, Stephen Hunt (author)#Sfcrowsnest, and change the existing article into a redirect. This makes sense as per the site's masthead, the full name is Stephen Hunt's SF Crowsnest.com. If it gets established that the site is "notable" it's easy enough to move the content back to its own article without the potential stigma of needing to recreate a previously deleted page. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:43, 8 February 2009 (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.