Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scifipedia

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 redirect/merge. Wickethewok 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scifipedia

Article fails to meet WP:WEB for notability. Article does not assert any notability. Article has few or no verifiable sources. Speedy delete was contested, so moving to AfD. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn website. Yechiel Man 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:WEB. Perhaps someday it will achieve the notability of Memory Alpha, but it's not there yet. --Charlene 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources include Locus Magazine (issue 545, June 2006, page 11), in addition to the two sources listed in the article. Yes, the first of those two sounds like it isn't going to be particularly in-depth, but with three sources in a variety of publications I think this is notable. Why it's been primarily discussed in print media and not online is an interesting question, but that does appear to be the case... JulesH 07:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, but is it a real source? Or just another mention (text is not available online)? Considering the site was launched at the end of April, I have a difficult time believing these sources from less than a month after its release (one prior to release, another had to go to print first) do anything more than advertise it's launch. Maybe the site just needs more time to gain notability? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC

Comment. Article has two sources, which is unusually many for a stub. What about these sources makes them unverifiable? JulesH 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The first source listed is a blog in the SacBee. Fortunately, I happen to live in the area and know of the source. However, the blog is on Mondays, and the date cited is a Tuesday. Even so, using web.archive.org I located that Monday's blog and there's no mention of Scifipedia. I haven't tried tackling the second source yet (they're difficult to verify as they don't provide an online link to replicate the research). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second source was easier to track, as the content was in their archives [1]. Just looks like another press release to me. It hardly qualifies notability. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locus don't generally run press releases or stuff like that; they'll have written about this because they think it's interesting. That said, I'm really not sure how in-depth the article is. I've sent a request to my local library to see if they have a copy, and I'll try to get time to look at it in the next couple of days if they do. JulesH 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sci Fi Channel (United States)#SciFi.com This is just something they added to make their website "sticky". They barely bother to promote it, so it's no surprise it only has 5000 articles. Just not notable.--Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Completely agree with Dhartung. I find it odd that SciFi.com is redirected, and then their little Wiki is not? Is there any chance that this article will expand beyond a few sentences? Otherwise covering it within SciFi.com makes perfect sense. --Merzul 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with a merge and redirect, the one sentence in the context as a subproject of SciFi.com would be reasonably sourced by even a press release. If JulesH is ok with that, my nom can be effectively changed to that resolution w/o process as far as I'm concerned. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems reasonable to me. Do it. JulesH 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scifi.com. JJL 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly Merged and Redirected to Sci_Fi_Channel_(United_States)#SciFi.com. Didn't merge the unreferenced sources, but they are available in the Scifipedia edit history if someone would like to include them (since we're not deleting). Feel free to close this discussion. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:57, 1 June 2007 (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.