Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edugeek


 * 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   no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edugeek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Article does not meet the criteria for inclusion found at WP:WEB. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Sources provided equate to primary references and trivial mentions. Little content actually about the subject of the article.  Cind. amuse  16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep It is the largest independent IT support forum in the UK, has featured in multiple national media outlets (The Guardian, TES, The Register, and on organisation sites such as the BCS, NAACE and in reports by organisations such as Becta and the NAHT). If that doesn't show notability, then no site on the net is notable.-Localzuk(talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this, it is seriously worrying that an article is given barely a few minutes after a prior incorrect speedy delete to put notability in place! It shows evidence of bad faith by the nominating editor, and the admin who previously speedy deleted it. How are users supposed to create an article? Are they supposed to arrive on this site with all rules memorised, and with their entire articles perfectly formed? If that's the case then there isn't a single article on here that would have survived a few years ago, as they all have to start somewhere!!-Localzuk(talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, our standards have tightened considerably in the last half decade or so, and numerous articles from back then wouldn't pass our current guidelines. However, we've never been a directory of every website ever, not even in the beginning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, a list of national news media sources, national agencies and organisations isn't notable then?-Localzuk(talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cindamuse. Little content actually about the subject of the article sums it up pretty well.  Decidedly weak Alexa rank of 26,000+ doesn't exactly suggest notability either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexa rank is not an accurate measure of worldwide site rankings, as it is mostly US-centric. Wikipedia is not a US-centric site, so it should not be used to gauge how notable a site is. Not to mention, the article has only had a few hours to actually allow editing! You are really putting off new editors by persisting with an attack on new articles like this.-Localzuk(talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, 26k rank is not notable? What planet are you on? There are hundreds of millions of websites online, and this one is in the low 10k's by their ranking, and you think that's not notable enough!?-Localzuk(talk) 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to provide some clarification - the GB ranking on Alexa is 3089!-Localzuk(talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I went looking for sources in Factiva and didn't find anything not already listed, except a one-paragraph listing in The Guardian Education Supplement. The reliable sources we know about so far do mention the site in passing, but they don't include coverage of the site itself. There isn't the kind of evidence that would satisfy Notability (web) or Notability. Melchoir (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Some coverage in third-party sources, but all so far seem to be articles about something else where Edugeek was mentioned. Who knows, with the demise of BECTA, Edugeek may grow in prominence, but we can revisit this page if and when more coverage appears. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just looking around at it's peer articles, there are ones that I believe exercise less notability than this, and aren't even English based to begin with. Though, the strange thing is that the notability and stance in the UK. Yes, it is fairly neich-y, but I know doing SysAdmin work that this quite often appears high up in search links. Reedy (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep UK ranking is respectable considering that the site targets a very specific target audience. Also as Reedy said, threads on the forum often appear quite high up in search engine requests although this isn't necessarily a factor of notability. The publicity the site has received is reasonably small and whether this is notable enough to be on wikipedia is questionable, although the sponsorships and affiliations with some most definately notable companies I think is for now enough to let the article stay. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note In case nobody has noticed, another article EduGeek.net on exactly the same subject has been created on 28 Jan 2011. --  Dr Greg   talk  22:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note EduGeek.net is the website (which is what the entry should be for) and EduGeek is the term used to describe members (generally IT Professionals working in education) but the term has also been used in US as part of EduGeek Journal, an online publication / site mainly contributed to by 6 teachers. The initial entry I put in place a few years ago was to do with the term, but there was insufficient noted use for the entry to stay. The site and online community of EduGeek.net has more credence as an entry and it is obvious that the entry on this page will be superseded by the other entry. They were created by different contributors, one who took an existing deleted entry (without much understanding of the need to promptly include significant references) and one which has been more carefully created to include the relevant references. Tonyshep (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep In a word, BS. You can't have it both ways. The sources that establish notability ARE the content that you decry for not being directly about the organization. If you want to quickly go and get rid of the stupid awkward poorly defined "article must show reasons for its own notability" rules, that lead to so many newbs writing peacock material, I'll wait; that would be more than OK with me. Instead I finally get to see them a deletor slip on them like a banana skin.
 * The points after the first paragraph of the History section report on what Edugeek does and what others said about it, as is inevitable for reporting by news sources that expect any stories they write to actually be read by people who are not paid to do so. They establish notability. And if you have a problem with them not being about what you choose to define as the subject of the article, I have already given you some advice about what to do about it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: per Angel - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is about the process here, rather than the article under discussion. From past experience, when I see a deletion debate about a web site turn like this from Delete towards Keep, it's often from a flood of WP:SPAs.  Usually because the site itself rallies the troops to "vote" to support the page.  Looking through all the Keep votes on this one, I see none of that.  Just regular WP editors expressing their opinions.  Maybe I'm becoming a bit cynical from my time around here but, in this current case, I am pleasantly surprised to not find what I was expecting to find. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (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.