Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Price Crash


 * 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. There's clearly a difference of opinion about how sources prove the notability of the website. There's no consensus either way, so the default move is to close as no consensus.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

House Price Crash

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

Does not meet WP:WEB - Two working sources are given, both of which mention the website, but neither of which have the site as more than a passing mention. In addition, this page makes an interesting read. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As it says in the article "The media spokesman for housepricecrash is financial adviser Jonathan Davis. He has made various appearances in the media, including BBC Breakfast, BBC 6 O'clock and 10 O'clock News, Sky News, Panorama, ITN's The Tonight Programme and Bloomberg TV, as well as numerous radio appearances (eg Jeremy Vine, BBC Radio 5 Live) and in national newspapers." The Kirstie Allsop thread was stupid (and I dealt with some vandalism arising from that) but it in no way affects the subjects notability. JASpencer (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But those programs haven't been about him; they've just had him in it. In any case, that claim needs to be sourced, and if it was, it would make Jonathan Davis (property consultant) notable - not this site. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me extend this a bit - the only mention of the site on the BBC article is "Jonathan Davis is a Chartered Financial Planner and is also a spokesman for www.HousePriceCrash.co.uk.". The only mention in the other working source is "Websites such as house-pricecrash.co.uk, pricedout.org.uk and globalhouse-pricecrash.com are sticking to their belief that the housing market is in for a rocky ride.". Two passing mentions does not equate to passing WP:WEB - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... except for trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address." [my emphasis]. The sources just state the internet address, they are about the housing market rather than the website, and thus they don't meet WP:WEB. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note They've got a board here where they chronicle mentions in the press. It looks like it's going to be a matter of simply collecting them and putting them on the article.  JASpencer (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These only improve the notability of Jonathan Davis... 90% of them mention the website with 'Jonathan Davis, Financial adviser and owner of the website HousePriceCrash.co.uk, says...' - It seems to me to be a list of trivial mentions. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per JASpencer. Dwain (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   —JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:WEB. Having a notable person front it doesn't make the site notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If I make some appearances on media talking about my job, does that automatically make the company I work for notable? No, it doesn't. None of the linked are actually about the company, it's just one of their employees' comments. Black Kite 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Top 25 property blog.  Top 3 no less...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.164.126 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)  — 82.153.164.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep popular and well know website devoted to a topical subject of major economic importance.217.171.129.77 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Dubious use of references, which are NOT about this website. As others note, it's all en passant trivial mentions).  / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - From the layout of the article, it seems that the bulk of the content (because there's only "a few" academic articles) is the blog and forums. Predictions and price sources can obviously be found elsewhere, as the "top 25" nature of the list means it's not a unique source.  We don't even need to go as par as WEB: three of the mentions are trivial, two other sources relate to the same story, and that leaves one news story in an almost five-year period (from source dating), which is not enough to assert notability.  WEB allows for other coverage, but that's not there either. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Times think it's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - they don't say that the website is notable - they have picked out 25 property blogs and have cited the blog sections not the substantive websites. The link here is a series of articles posted by readers with anonymous comments. TerriersFan (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If people want more than one reference in one newspaper, here's a few; one from each of the major national newspapers:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2008/may/29/housepricesjudgementdayor
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-king/stephen-king-as-safe-as-houses-how-harsh-realities-are-dispelling-the-home-market-myths-826288.html
 * http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/06/24/14017/homes-under-the-hammer-double-bill/
 * It's a notable website and as a result it's noted frequently in national newspapers and on finance / business news programs in the UK when housing related issues are being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerheid (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Three more passing mentions in articles that are not about the website. Black Kite 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Plugs for the website within forum posts attached to a newspaper article are not acceptable references.-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable - All the sources are trivial mentions of the website, apart from the London Tonight piece, which might be non-trivial (although a third-party source would be needed), but on its own isn't enough to establish notability. Silverfish (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, gets mentions seems reasonably notable. If I were to start going through and nominating non-notable websites/software/etc., I certainly wouldn't start here. --Delirium (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is advertising, not a notable website.&mdash;Perceval 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a content problem it should be not be dealt with through an AfD, it is a misuse of the process. JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, Well known financial website, I'm amazed this is up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.220.247 (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)  — 82.27.220.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, Its a site relevant to the discussion of the economics of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Sabine (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)  — Keith Sabine (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relevant, perhaps. Notable? per WP:WEB? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this site is constantly mentioned in UK media. A spokesman from Hitwise stated on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 30th August 2008 that "House Price Crash" was one of the most searched for terms in the UK at the moment. Pandini (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth does that mean it's notable? Just because an incredibly popular term happens to share the name of the website, it doesn't make the website notable! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Err "This site is constantly mentioned in UK media" is what on earth makes it notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Davis is contantly mentioned in UK media, not the site... Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's you're (wrong) opinion. The point that was originally made is that the site is constantly reported in the British media. Which it is.  JASpencer (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one has yet proven that with more than non-trivial references, however. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When you redefine the word trivial this could the case. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trivial" means that most of the references are of the form "Johnathan Davies, from HousePriceCrash.co.uk, said....". That's a trivial reference, because it means that the article isn't about the website, but merely quoting someone who works for it. Black Kite 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly that's not quite true, there are quite a few references in this article that don't mention Jonathan. Leaving this aside there are only one or two occassions (not listed in this article) where he is speaking without being presented as a spokesman for "housepricecrash.co.uk" in much the same way that Ray Boulger is the spokesman for Charcoal. He simply wouldn't get on TV as the joint-proprietor of a construction consultancy, as I'm sure he'd admit.  And you must ask why do so many (including the American Forbes and the French Liberation) turn to housepricecrash when they need a bearish comment? Because it is (was?) the premier British group that makes the point that property values are overvalued.  (Yes, the irony that they are being deleted at the one time when they are proven right is odd). JASpencer (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that House Price Crash is a popular search term suggests that web users are searching for the site, no? I accept that some may be searching for information on falling house prices, but the term is quite specific, and I would suggest that the majority are searching for this particular site. Pandini (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that very much... "House Price Crash" is very much a term refering to the crash in house prices, a concern far more notable than this website. It's far far far more likely that the website makers might have guessed that people could just possibly relate the term "House Price Crash" to crashing house prices because of their super brains... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may doubt it, but Google suggests otherwise http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=housepricecrash&geo=GB&date=&clp=&cmpt=q Pandini (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... that really doesn't make a case for your point; believe it or not, we British citizens are not well known for posting our every single thought on the web, and as of today, google can not yet do mind searches. Thank god i wear this insulating tin foil though! - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see enough sources here today to pass WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Price_Crash#References rootology ( C )( T ) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep From my perusal of the cites it would appear that Jonathan Davis is more deserving of an article than the website. At a rough count, half the cites primarily refer to him.  HousePriceCrash's role in things don't go much beyond that of paying Davis to get their name on the news article, which is what "media spokesmen" are paid to do I suppose.  I think the website manages notability, just, but the article needs more cites that refer to the website itself and not just mentions that are little more than "this opinion is brought to you by..." -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I almost went for an easy Keep, until i decided to read through the references in more detail than checking to make sure the website was actually mentioned. Not a single non-trivial mention of the website is made and appart from the occasional use of the actual website name, even here though there are no claims of notability made. Take for example,, an article from the Guardian, a notable British news source. It says, "You only have to dip into websites such as Housepricecrash.co.uk to get a sense... ", clearly noting the webiste as not only nothing special, but as one of many other non-notable webistes, this one likely chosen purely on the name. No source gives higher status to the website in question and i can't find a serious source discussing the website or showing it to be notable. While the website is mentioned in passing as such on more than one occasion, a high count of such references with no substantial claims to notability should be taken as nothing more than statistical coincidence, unless an article central on the website from a reliable source can make the claim. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't that argument be applied to any other website or magazine, i.e. "you only have to dip into a magazine like GQ to see that..." ? Uncoolbob (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could. Fortunately, most (though i haven't checked them all) can make other claims to notability. My point is that it doesn't have any other kind of reference. It'd only take one article on the actual website, or at least one line claim to notability from a non-trivial source and i'd switch to keep. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the "London Tonight" incident? JASpencer (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirstie Allsopp is not an appropriate judge of general consensus or a basis for claim to notability. Her profession is likely to lead her to purposely searching out such niche websites and in the case, it was only spelled out as a specific because as with all cases of expression of negative, it is claimed to be some sort of "incident" like she just dropped a grenade on someone. Her own notability or the manner in which the, *ahem* "incident" was delivered, do not increase its notability either. I am a heavy user of the forum at, I could mention the website and make comment on it to other people, that wouldn't however suddenly prove the notability of the website; it is a non-notable website which I know as part of the niche community surrounding it. Should the comment being made on TV have any bearing? Of course it shouldn't. Any commentator in any market segment, industry or topical hobby can mention a website online despite its notability and it is no proof that it is notable. She wasn't specifically making claims to it's "fame", and the reference even specifically words itself as, "a website like housepricecrash.co.uk ", once again generalising the genre. Finally, if any website mentioned on TV deserved an article, than a whole array of websites that had no other serious mention or non-trivial statements made about them would all feature, and we all know from instinct alone that half wouldn't belong. For example, every ClickOnline feature would be on here, along with the websites mentioned on every other show dedicated to the subject. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable; a lot of the information is available elsewhere and the bulk of the site activity appears to be in the forum. Goose (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do either of those statements invalidate notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think there's anything more that can be added to the article - and it doesn't really say much, now! Goose (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but tag mercilessly. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2008 (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.