Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bored of Studies

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. W.marsh 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bored of Studies

Bored of Studies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Restored deleted uncontested prod. Prod rationale was non-notable Internet forum and website, fails WP:WEB --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, unless sufficient independant reliable sources are added to the article to clearly establish notability. DES ^(talk) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Added citations seem to establish notability to me. Change to keep. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Not visibly notable. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVAus (which dealt with another reasonably well-patronised but ultimately non-notable forum) Orderinchaos 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Per changes I have modified my vote - still not entirely convinced the TVAus situation was any different, but this one does now meet notability criteria Orderinchaos 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleaned up and added references. Notable website and resource, enough in my opinion to fulfil WP:WEB. Recurring dreams 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the one who originally prodded the article, but it seems that vast improvements have been made in the past day or so. My apologies to the editors of that article for not doing a more thorough search. --- RockMFR 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Awesomeness. I will try to find a couple more sources. Recurring dreams 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. References added in past day have cleared up any notability issues. Rafy 04:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, seems notable, if only because of the controversy. Lankiveil 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep notable per WP:WEB ExtraDry 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only reliable secondary source appears to be the Sydney Morning Herald. Of the four pages, three only mention the website in one line. The fourth page mentions the website in one paragraph, with the article being on the Higher School Certificate, rather than the website. The source of UAC is a two line warning to students about the website. Doesn't seem notable to me. Assize 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are also sources from the Daily Telegraph (and along with the smh, that makes both the large circulation newspapers in Sydney). The website is also the sole subject of two of the sources, with more than simply a line of content. Recurring dreams 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I will rely on your research into the Daily Telegraph. Unfortunately, my search of the Telegraph and Google News websites reveal no references to the subject of the article. In respect of the SMH, could you point to the article in which the subject is the sole subject of the article. I must admit, I have reread the four articles that I found and couldn't find it, so there is probably a fifth out there. Assize 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I should also say that I didn't mean to imply that the Tele wasn't a reliable source either. Assize 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Have added weblinks in the main article to the SMH articles cited. I still think there is not sufficient depth of coverage to warrant inclusion. Assize 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. The two articles that profile the website are from the Daily Telegraph. The SMH articles mention them within more general material. Unfortunately there are no weblinks of the Tele articles. Recurring dreams 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - 90,000 and 7 million hits per month is pretty notable in its own right. Also supported by sources. And I know this is unverifiable but I've been a student in NSW and used this website, it may not be reviewed in every online newspaper but it's definitely well known amongst students and teachers in the state, while I'm not saying this should be the cause for decision it's just something editors outside of Australia should keep in mind. Guycalledryan 07:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RockMFR and Guycalledryan. Article has been well-established with sources and should pass WP:N. JRG 01:15, 1 June 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.