Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harringay Online


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Harringay Online

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable local website, has won one award, which itself doesn't appear to be too notable. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kind of like a local Facebook. The area it serves is not that large, and there are no third-party sources cited. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional merge to Harringay if it stays in its current form but it's at least theoretically keepable as a stand-alone article if it can be shown that it's had an impact on the development of similar sites, or that it's had a significant impact on the community. The comment above me regarding "no third party sources" is incorrect, though; there are two cited in the article, besides the three others in the EL section. –  iride  scent  18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll deal with them one by one, if I may:
 * 1. Awards/Recognition: The Catalyst Awards are a national award sponsored by No. 10. The awards were presented by Gordon Brown. Here are the awards written up on NESTA's website. We are featured on the European Union's best practice website, particularly because we are considered a model for the development of other sites. We have now also been short-listed for the National eWell-Being Awards. Harringay Online is the only hyperlocal website to get this recognition because it is doing it's job so well. So, I think there's a fair case there for notability in it's class.


 * 2. If the issue is the notability of the class, i.e. hyperlocal websites, I think there's also a good case.


 * Government departments and well respected research establishments are increasingly focussing on the key role of hyperlocal websites. Local sites like Harringay Online are specifically mentioned as a group in a whole raft of recent guidance from the Department of Communities & Local Government around Coomunities in Control. Government sees them as core to a key part of their agenda.  The DCLG have recently awarded £1m to local councils to encourage them to establish more hyperlocal activity.


 * Just recently Head of the Royal Society of Arts, Matthew Taylor wrote about the issue in one of his blogs. He specifically mentioned Harringay Online and indeed in one of his follow-up comments said "If we had 5,000 Harringay on lines our society would be much richer".


 * Hyperlocal is an issue for Government and third sector influencers. Harringay Online is a leader in this movement. We've spawned sites in Virginia, Durban and of course in the UK. (For example a nearby local site recently Twittered "@Harringayonline been very inspired by ... your network when rebuilding the East Finchley network"


 * I'm not clear why its serving a small geographic area is an issue. Size of geography doesn't seem to be an issue for Wikipedia.


 * 3. Impact on the community - the site is aimed at a neighbourhood of 15,000 people. It was started two years ago and has a membership of over 1,500. Any media that has a penetration of 10% within two years should be making some impact on those numbers alone. Staying with numbers, Google Analytics shows that the site gets an average of 250 visits a day from 150 unique visitors - a greater level of penetration than Channel 4 News or BBC's Newsnight. It is rated in the top decile of sites by Hubspots Website Grader tool. Alexa ranks us in the top 3% of websites worldwide (Traffic rank of 1,958,599 out of about 66m active websites. It is number 2 in results on a Google search for Harringay. On a numbers basis, not sure what else would satisfy.


 * But so much for stats. In terms of local impact, the people in the area are the best arbiters and we have hundreds of testimonials from them - happy to supply. We've also had significant on the ground impacts in the neighbourhood. These can be referenced by local press stories. They include:
 * - a successful campaign resisting the local opening of betting shops
 * - a successful movement and campaign to resist a plan from Haringey Council for the nearby Wood Green which would have rerouted traffic through our area
 * - the biggest summer party ever in the area
 * - the initiation of a Council sponsored Local Charter for the area to develop a vision and 5 year plan for the area
 * - the first ever street festival for the area which will involve the closure of one of North London's busiest roads.
 * - Support and info to support individuals with countless occasions of local action.


 * 4. What other commentators have said:


 * "I'm a great fan of this remarkable local site because of the huge number of digital conversations it generates among residents". Kevin Harris' article, Digital engagement: transparency and power, published on New Start, 31st March 2009. (And another post referencing the same story here


 * Richard - I am trying to do precisely this, having been very impressed with Harringay-Online. I also thought I would try to build up an advice wiki on this issue and will copy and paste your great advice over to it now. I hope that is OK. http://onlinecommunitybuilder.pbwiki.com/


 * Posted by: Paul Johnston | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 12:43


 * That's a brilliant example Paul. A really, really, brilliant example. So many participants, activity.


 * Posted by: Richard Millington | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 13:14


 * Discussion on Richard Millington's Fever Bee


 * "Really impressed by the Harringay Online Community. Perfect example for others to follow" Richard Millington on Twitter, March 21st, 2009


 * "The key aspect to all of this is to start to open up and explore the new connections and to create an information and conversation flow between residents and councils (or council staff) and then creating and developing new opportunities to communicate out. There is a huge potential to support these environments which also foster social capital. A great example of this is Harringayonline, which is not a council lead initiative." Carl Haggerty on Carl's Notepad, February 6, 2009


 * Happy to go through my files and find stronger examples if these aren't enough.


 * I hope this helps. The reason the article should stay, quite apart from it's notability is that it is a an example for other to follow. It is a leader in its field and it should be as easy as possible for people to find. No one is making any money out of it. It's a 100% community not-for-profit venture.


 * hjuk (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Keep, per above. CF90 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete After looking at this one carefully, I believe that there are insufficient reliable sources out there to provide material for an article. I was going to suggest merge, but I feel that the one-line external link (with mention of the award) in Harringay is correct coverage. I see no evidence of reliable sources to provide anything further than that. The comments regarding alleged web statistics and 'tweets' do not help the cause.  Chzz  ►  00:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source from a couple of days ago. And, also a reference in The Guardian

To get an idea of what reliable sources are allowed as references for websites, I had a look at Category:British websites. It seems that many have fewer references than this one. So, it's hard to work out what's acceptable. In terms of the sources we do have, let's just review them:
 * The European Commission's own website
 * A UK Government website, in the form of NESTA
 * A mention in the Guardian newspaper
 * A Press Association website, in the form of Commmunity Newswire.
 * The well-respected regeneration & economic development magazine, New Start.
 * The Royal Society of Arts Website in an article written by the Chief of the Society.
 * A host of mentions in other smaller well-respected specialist sites.

There's no two-page spread in the FT, but let's be realistic, for a hyperlocal website, this is substantial verifiable sourcing from a whole range of reliable sources. Please explain what's missing.

As to the web stats, they're all verifiable. Alexa is the most referenced guide to website performance and is open for public scrutiny. Google Analytics stats are also verifiable - happy to give access to those.

hjuk (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Walter Delve 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: sources cited are reliable and enough evidence presented to show that this site is seen an exemplar of hyperlocal websites and is therefore notable. There is also evidence in the sources that it is building community networks and social capital, - topics currently at the forefront of government thinking worldwide.
 * — Walter Delve (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I've had conversations with hjuk on this in the past, and I've proposed it for deletion. Certainly there are COI issues and it is only borderline notable, but the award and mentions are (barely) sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Tedder, this is my first lengthy contribution. Although a regular user of Wikipedia I haven’t been a contributor. I work in the community in the borough of Haringey and am an avid supporter of hyperlocal. I became aware of this debate through a watch I have on items on the borough across the web - http://twitter.com/wikiwars/status/1719153087. I wanted to step up, support the inclusion of articles on hyperlocal on Wikipedia in general, but on Harringay Online in particular. I’ve read the AFD guidance and whilst not an expert editor, It seems to me that this article meets the notability and reliable sources criteria. So, I’m a firm, if novice, keep. Walter Delve (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep, sources cited seem good enough, and seems notable to an extent from what I have read from this discussion. Taelus (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Hasn't had what I'd exactly call significant coverage in reliable sources, but an indepth interview in a local government newsletter, a passing mention in the Guardian and some award nominations just scrape it for me. Not just another website. Fences and windows (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of Harringay (1880–present) (that seems a good target to me), since this is not independently notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: sources cited are reliable and it should be kept as a stand-alone article --IsarSteve (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think the sources are strong for a hyperlocal site and this is a notable example of one. I work in local government and Haringey Online has been used as an example of the kind of community run local websites we should try and encourage in our area. -- Mikebrophy (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (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.