Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home.co.uk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 09:05Z
[edit] Home.co.uk
Non notable website (fails Alexa test circa 43,000). Also appears to be autobiogrpahical Ratarsed 13:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator -- Ratarsed 13:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alexa ranking is not one of our WP:WEB criteria, and checking Alexa is not research. Research involves looking for published works about this subject from independent sources. The web site is one of 10 sites discussed in this article in The Mirror. It's one of the 5 sites tested by Moneywise and reported in this article in The Birmingham Post. It's one of several sites discussed in this article in Estates Gazette. It's discussed in this article in The Daily Mail, and in this article in The Sunday Times, and mentioned in this article in MoneyWeek. There's clearly some verifiable information to be had on the subject from independent sources. The only question is whether there is enough information to support a whole article or whether there is only a little information that should be presented in an article with a broader scope, such as one on the housing market in the U.K.. That's a choice between rewriting the article as it stands from sources and merging it. Neither option involves deletion, or any administrator tools, at any stage. Uncle G 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alexa is cited as an option at Wikipedia:Search engine test.
The references I could find seemed to be media reprints of press releases[1] -- the Website itself doesn't appear to have any original content (even their house price index if bought in from Calnea Analytics[2] who run mouseprice.com[3]).
Neither of those points address the article being autobiographical. -- Ratarsed 14:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not cited as an option. Wikipedia:Search engine test explains the flaws in the Alexa test, and some of the reasons why it is not one of the criteria, which can be found, as I said, at WP:WEB.
As for the article being autobiographical: If sources exist, that is a matter of cleanup, which any editor can do. Uncle G 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not cited as an option. Wikipedia:Search engine test explains the flaws in the Alexa test, and some of the reasons why it is not one of the criteria, which can be found, as I said, at WP:WEB.
- Alexa is cited as an option at Wikipedia:Search engine test.
- Delete not a notable website--Sefringle 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If this were an article on a non-web commercial organization we would surely be deleting it as commercial advertising, and being on the web doesnt change the nature. DGG 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G. Although the text reads like advertising, this can be cleaned up by editing. The multiple sources noted by Uncle G seem to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G. Good God, that's a lot of sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2007.
- I'm not convinced as to how much weight those sources carry, as I believe them to be paraphrasing press releases. If we were to trust them, then there should be articles on Wikipedia on a whole load of other websites out there (hated-celebrities.co.uk would be an example of a website that got national (multi-page) coverage in several newspapers, but doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia) -- Ratarsed 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The sources do not qualify if they are "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising". However, from what I can tell, the articles are reviews rather than reprints of press releases. As for the example you note, http://www.hated-celebrities.co.uk, I am not familiar with it or its coverage so I won't comment on its inclusion in WP. However, maybe it should have an article. Just as the presence of an article is not necessarily an indicator of notability, the lack of an article is also not necessarily an indicator non-notability. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I eluded to, I'm not convinced that the mentions are not just the result of a press release arriving at a convenient time, or that a marketing budget bought some journo a nice lunch -- the sources more common in the media that I have experienced first hand are those from the Land Registry (government agency), the Halifax (and probably other building societies, but the Halifax sticks in my mind more), and very occasionally Rightmove (I believe they were featured on the Money Programme on the BBC a while back for their house price index. If home.co.uk was really notable, I would expect it to have been mentioned in the broadcast media more, yet it's never even got a mention in a BBC Online news story (Possibly because they just regard it as a meta site with none of its own original content)... Oh, and for the record, I don't think hated-celebrities is worth an article, as it folded without making any substantial impact on the world (short of a few alleged threats from lawyers and multi page spreads in the UK press). In short, I still think I'd need convincing that this article is worth keeping, personally. -- Ratarsed 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Granted, and I'm not suggesting that hated-celebrities should be included (I know nothing about the site). However, when consider whether home.co.uk was/is "really notable", please keep in mind whether it meets WP:WEB rather than how popular it is. If the sources provided by Uncle G are not independent and reliable, then yes, the website isn't notable. However, I think there would have to be some proof that the mentions were "bought" for them to be disregarded as reprints of press releases. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I eluded to, I'm not convinced that the mentions are not just the result of a press release arriving at a convenient time, or that a marketing budget bought some journo a nice lunch -- the sources more common in the media that I have experienced first hand are those from the Land Registry (government agency), the Halifax (and probably other building societies, but the Halifax sticks in my mind more), and very occasionally Rightmove (I believe they were featured on the Money Programme on the BBC a while back for their house price index. If home.co.uk was really notable, I would expect it to have been mentioned in the broadcast media more, yet it's never even got a mention in a BBC Online news story (Possibly because they just regard it as a meta site with none of its own original content)... Oh, and for the record, I don't think hated-celebrities is worth an article, as it folded without making any substantial impact on the world (short of a few alleged threats from lawyers and multi page spreads in the UK press). In short, I still think I'd need convincing that this article is worth keeping, personally. -- Ratarsed 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The sources do not qualify if they are "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising". However, from what I can tell, the articles are reviews rather than reprints of press releases. As for the example you note, http://www.hated-celebrities.co.uk, I am not familiar with it or its coverage so I won't comment on its inclusion in WP. However, maybe it should have an article. Just as the presence of an article is not necessarily an indicator of notability, the lack of an article is also not necessarily an indicator non-notability. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced as to how much weight those sources carry, as I believe them to be paraphrasing press releases. If we were to trust them, then there should be articles on Wikipedia on a whole load of other websites out there (hated-celebrities.co.uk would be an example of a website that got national (multi-page) coverage in several newspapers, but doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia) -- Ratarsed 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G. The text needs to be cleaned up. However, the Asking Price Index and asking price summaries by town and postcode are indeed worthy of a mention. Home.co.uk is probably the UK's first 'vertical search' and certainly the first in property. BTW the site is linked directly from the BBC website's property section. I would say notability for inclusion in wikipedia is that this site is a leading and respected source of information on UK property for sale. Dougshephard 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G's quick findings. Multiple non-trival pulbished works. --Oakshade 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
