Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (second nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. --bainer (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universe Today

Relisting after no consensus, but close to delete, first time round [1]. Instead of improvement, this article has regressed and is now a strange disambig page / list for multiple non notable websites of the same name. Delete Neutral Rockpocket 07:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm tempted to suggest delete based on the alexa rank of 38,038 for what is described as the most popular but the arguments put foreward in the last AFD that it's notable within astronomy circles seem to make it more than most of the websites that come this way. Article definatly needs cleanup though I suggest removing the content on the other sites as they definatly seem NN. Ydam 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ydam's comment here, but from what I can understand from the talk page this article has gone through many arguments since it was last up for deletion that are sometimes hard to follow. Perhaps someone who was involved in that could give their viewpoint? Andromeda321 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that User:Yales is yet another sockpuppet for Wayne Smith, a persistent linkspammer who appears to previously have been indefinitely blocked but keeps coming back. I don't have time to run this down today, but if somebody else could investigate, that would be great. Note also the open request for investigation on some of the sockpuppets.--William Pietri 13:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I agree that the current article needs cleanup, but Universe Today (.com, I have no experience with the others) is one of the more popular and important astronomy-for-laymen sites, and as one of the two fathers to the important BAUT forum (the other being Bad Astronomy), it is notable. It has made e.g. Skeptic News, and perhaps even more telling, it is one of the five newssites linked to from Astronomy.net. Fram 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest keep possible and removal of spam (wich I'll attend to pmomentarily).--Kalsermar 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Universe Today (as in .com) is a popular astronomy site with a widely read newsletter. (Full disclosure: I subscribe to it but I have no relation to the owner nor any other kind of stake in the enterprise, I merely read it as an astronomy enthusiast). It is by far the most high ranking of the UT websites and the only one to actually go by the name Universe Today. The universe today.org site (return to the moon) does not have the UT name on its site, merely the domain name.org and has if I recall a whooping 5 google hits. Universe Today.net, Wayne Smith's site is actually a forum that goes by the name Universe Daily. Apparently, Smith has been linkspamming on here for a while and has several sockpuppets. (He accused me falsely of being Fraser Cain! and vandalised my user page!) This site has less than 50 google hits. Fraser Cain's UT.com has several hundreds of google hits and is mentioned on other websites that deal with astronomy. This article specifically refers to the .com website and not the others who do not even go by the name UT.--Kalsermar 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. My name has several hundred google hits, but that it itself doesn't make me notable. The site appears to have a very low Alexa rank, but i do accept that does not mean it is not an important portal for a niche field. In deference to those that know more about astronomy than I, i've changed my suggestion to neutral. I relisted it mainly because it was very close to deletion last time and the closing editor mentioned he/she would welcome a relist if the article hadn't developed. As it happened the article was a lot worse. Rockpocket 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It got worst it can arguably be said because of dubious edits, possibly by the indef. blocked Wayne Smith's sockpuppet(s).--Kalsermar 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in its current version, as it does seem to be associated with some fairly high-profile astronomy pages and forums. (And heh at the redlink editor removing the PROD and calling it 'spam' in the edit summary!) Tony Fox (speak) 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete i hate to be the "bad guy" here, but even if its a somewhat popular website, under WP:WEB the article needs to provide proof that it meets the criteria for notability, which it does not. --Samael775 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Fox and Fram above. The problem with the article has been the attempt to spam it with links to similarly-named sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kalsermar, but indefinitely block the sock puppets of Universe Daily, per William Pietri - including the IP addresses this time. The same linkspam keeps getting added to this and a handful of other sites some of us editors work hard to keep in good shape, by the same guy under different sock puppets, after four of his sock puppets have been "indefinitely" blocked, including for egregious abuse of other editors and routine deception - as anyone can discover a lot of by looking through the references from Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users, Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Requests and Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:43, 17 June 2006 (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.