Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritaserum (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sandstein 11:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veritaserum (website)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Veritaserum (website) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Image:Veritaserum logo white.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

nn Harry Potter fansite. Alexa is a modest 13,838, but how is an article about a fansite suitable for an encyclopedia, when there are hundreds of articles on the harry potter universe. Article is somewhat spammy and very non-npov, no assertion of notability. Biggspowd 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Hmmm...why on earth would this article be deleted? The fansite is big enough, look at the Alexa, and is very notable fro Galleries, forums and news...The article is a credit to the Harry Potter Project and to Wikipedia in general... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) — 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I agree with Nick. Why on earth would this be deleted? Veritaserum has a very loyal following and strives for a Spam-free and spoiler-free environment. Of all the Harry Potter fan sites out there, VTM is my favorite. The layout is fun and creative. Quite unique to the other sites. The staff is courteous and friendly and strives for excellence. VTM has a great, friendly environment where fans can come together and share ideas without hostility from other members who may not agree with their views. It would be a shame and a disservice to remove Veritaserum from Wikipedia! -- 209.102.152.187 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Laura — 209.102.152.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I also agree with the above members. Many other fan sites are listed, most notably the infamous MuggleNet.com. To delete this site would go against all wikipedia principles - and quite frankly, it would be wrong to do so. I would also like to cast out the assumption that this person may even be from another fansite. It would be disgusting to delete this site from Wikipedia simply on this principle. -- 84.13.242.25 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 84.13.242.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Whilst i think that the atmosphere of the forum is notable i think it is the sheer weight of the argument against that should be the reason it is kept here. The article is an integral part of the Harry Potter Fandom article as only Mugglenet, The Leaky Cauldron, Veritaserum and possibly one other have their own Wikipedia page. This was decided after lengthy debates and i think it should be kept this way as this article is an asset to the site. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) — 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Veritaserum is a site for everyone to visit and feel welcome, unlike other sites that will not be named. It's a friendly place for people of all ages, from all over the world to get together and read the Fanfictions, read the News, join the discussions on the Forums and look at the Galleries. How that is spammy is beyond me. Perhaps if people had a look at the site before wanting it's deletion from Wiki they would see that they are wrong about it. -Triadic. — Triadic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: This AFD has been advertised here. --Coredesat 07:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:NN - no WP:RS references documenting that anyone off the website thinks the website is notable. Add a few mainstream-media references to it, and I'll change to keep. --Alvestrand 07:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Now adequately sourced. --Alvestrand 07:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This might fail WP:WEB, but the article is definitely unsourced, non-neutral, and reads like an advertisement. --Coredesat 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Personal accounts from Veritaserum users aside, this *might* have some third-party sources covering it. [1] is pretty trivial coverage, but may point to more. I hope though, that the users from the site understand that Wikipedia does have criteria for inclusion that requires third-party reliable sources, which is not solely the testimony of editors here on Wikipedia. Nor is the presence of other sites having articles on Wikipedia necessarily indicative in this case, as these are not being treated as one site, but separately. FrozenPurpleCube 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. No assertion of notability using reliable secondary sources. I'm also very tempted to call WP:SPAM here, especially given some of the comments above and the reasons given for keeping this article. WP:RS and WP:N are quite clear on what sources WP:WEB requires to establish notability. You cannot argue your way around that. MartinDK 09:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Neither WP:WEB nor WP:NPOV, also seems difficult to find reliable sources --kateshortforbob 11:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete While I've tried unsuccessfully to find reliable sources about this site, the search is hampered by the large number of results returned that are about Potions in Harry Potter#Veritaserum instead. JulesH 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    That is a problem with a web search on this subject vs. this website. But Wikipedia go along the line of it being the person wanting to include something duty to provide the source needed for inclusion. It is not the duty of users on AfD to spend all day looking for the reliable source. -- KTC 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, a search in this case is difficult, however, I can say I made a reasonable effort to find articles. If anything, it's slightly more likely the creator has sources about him than his site. I don't pretend to perfection, and somebody could show up with something I didn't know about, but I gave it a good try. FrozenPurpleCube 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to keep per sources found below. I consider an article about the creator of the site to establish notability of the site, because the creator has apparently not done anything else notable. JulesH 07:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fail WP:WEB, with no WP:RS, and not WP:NPOV. Possibly WP:SPAM. -- KTC 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination fails the WEB without reliable sources, possible spam. Burntsauce 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nominator. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - going through Google news alone earned me three reliable sources (added now, above should reconsider their !votes). This website is certainly notable. Myself I am doubtful if it requires such detailed coverage though - perhaps merge into Harry Potter? User:Krator (t c) 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    Seen all of those, none of the coverage is specifically about the website, but is rather trivial coverage. Brief mentions of a site are not sufficient to establish notability. For example, the first reference is more in the way of the founder, and the article itself is about Harry Potter's relationship to charitable acts. The second is a quote from the same person in an article about the spoilers related to the books. The third just indicates an author used the biography there. Unfortunately, usage as a source in this case isn't very convincing. Sorry, but it seems your references are not adequate at this time. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Krator. I might suggest a merge relevant and pertinent parts into the Harry Potter fandom article. LaMenta3 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did a Google search and found several additional third-party sources referencing the website, which I added to the page. Brethenbrother181 05:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    Looks like the most on point is [2] which is directly on the topic. The rest are not significant coverage of the site, being focused on other things, or are more properly focused on the creator of the site for example: [3]. The first *may* be enough, it's better than nothing, but it's also a local news spot. I will say this though, your use of in-line references is not ideal. Stacking multiple references in a row, just doesn't look good. You may wish to check the manual of style. FrozenPurpleCube 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if this counts as notable, but I thought I would point it out. HPANA[4]has Veritaserum listed on its main page in the "News Sources" box along with 13 other sites.--209.102.152.185 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Laura
No, I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the Harry Potter News Aggregator is quite reliable enough for it to make a good case for the notability of another related site. FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for want of verifiability. All the sources I'm seeing in the article to date (11 August around 23:00 GMT) suggest that this is just another fan site amongst many. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    In that case, an argument could be made that many of these other fan sites have their own Wikipedia pages, some of which have fewer or no references cited. Brethenbrother181 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely! Verifiability is one of our most fundamental policies. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
"Just another website" is not logical in my mind. It's a website, it's been covered in Wall Street Journal among others (that one was quite a bit mroe than a "reference in passing"). If it satisfies WP:WEB, let it stay. --Alvestrand 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, the Wall Street Journal Reference is...two sentences, which I call a very slim reference. FrozenPurpleCube 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I make it 136 words - the reason I think it indicates notability is because the journalist, when looking for an exemplar of the "volunteer meme spreading website" phenomenon, picked on Vitaserum as his "well known example". --Alvestrand 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
136 words? Are you counting the website and company name? Sorry, but I think you're really reaching there. Besides, you can't deny that the primary focus of the article isn't the website, and as far as notability goes, the only things is says about it is more related to Matthew Vines than the website. There's nothing about the site's content at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You may wish to read What about article X which addresses this more fully, but the basic point is that another article's existing doesn't mean this one should be kept. Perhaps those others should be removed as well. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Denverpost.com [5] has veritaserum.com on its website. Once again, not sure if this will count as notable but thought I'd point it out. Thanks --209.102.152.185 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura
No, it won't, as a simple link to a URL isn't meaningful of anything. It doesn't tell us about the site, or its merit. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry if you are getting tired of me, but I found summervillejournalscene.com [6] had veritaserum.com mentioned in an article. Thanks --209.102.152.185 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura

Again, the problem is like with the above, it's a trivial reference to a site, not specific coverage of it. Off-hand references are not really what's desired here, but coverage like: [7]. Note, I'm not expecting anywhere near as much as the Youtube.com article has, but just trying to give you a general idea of what to look for. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, while references exist, they seem to only prove facts about the site ("founded by Matthew Vines.[1][2][3]"); none of them indicate why this site is notable. If "Veritaserum is also known for its accurate and quick news updates and is often right on top of any "big" news that surfaces" can be sourced, that might establish some sliver of notability. Otherwise, the refs are just trivial. Axem Titanium 14:18, 13 August 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.