Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsource.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Placebo Effect 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lightsource.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously speedily deleted twice for being advertising. This is a Christian online ministry; the article cites sources but was nominated for speedy deletion with the contention that they were all trivial. I have refused the speedy and brought it here with no recommendation from me. Sam Blacketer 10:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] o Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles    that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. Christianity Today, About.com, DC Internet, and Billboard are all independent, reliable sources that cover the site with a complete article rather than a trivial internet address mentions, directory listings, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betweenworlds (talk • contribs)
 * Keep The argument appears to be over the sources, at least two of them appear to be reliable and non-trivial. Because they're niche sources shouldn't negate their reliability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article shows plenty of information with sources. It isn't even a stub in my opinion. Thebestkiano 10:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't let the number of sources fool you. They aren't independent, reliable sources, and in the two or three that are independent and reliable, the coverage is trivial. Notability is not asserted from the sources (and cannot be from these sources), and an organization is not inherently notable because of its association with other notables (cf. an talent agent who works for many well-known people but who has no significant independent press coverage -- that agent does not get a page just because his clients do). This is too much like an ad. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 11:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as advert Elmao 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Flex: as it is, it is undistinguishable from spam. If and when multiple, independent, reliable sources can be found, a real article can be written starting afresh. --Goochelaar 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - lacks acceptable reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion.  /Blaxthos 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent evidence of notability. Corvus cornix 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious advertising and unencyclopedic content. Biruitorul 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not an advertisement if it is simply explaining the valuable website content. If you note, it has ADVERSE references that put the site in negative light, this shows a npov. Also, there are plenty of articles covering various websites of all different topics. Why allow websites of one topic but not of Christianity? It's not promotion if it's stating facts as well as sources of opposition. User:klrutzel 72.84.208.91 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) *** also note that the sources of content on the site (individual broadcasters) have their own articles and that the images point towards internal links.
 * Comment: You've made two of the arguments to avoid: other similar articles exist (if they're so similar, that's probably an argument for their deletion, too, not for keeping this one) and it's valuable, so it belongs (but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion of any resource nor a collection of all useful information). PS, I'm a conservative Christian who appreciates some of the content you host, but that doesn't mean it belongs here or that this is in any way related to the material's religious nature -- it's not. The website simply doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to COmment I don't see how it's not related to Wikipedias religious section. If someone wants to find out how they can listen to sermons online and find out the viewpoints of different leaders in Christianity, LightSource is the only place where you can go to watch the videos for free. Just as wikipedia has a written explanation for Christianity, LightSource has a spoken explanation. 208.253.81.4 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not related in the sense that if LightSource were Hindu or Atheistic, political or social, it still wouldn't merit an article under WP:WEB. Just because one can watch free video there doesn't mean it belongs here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for getting your name out there (read: publicity), nor is it a collection of external links, however valuable they may be. Many things are valuable that don't belong here. The criterion you must meet for the article to stay is not to prove your content is valuable but to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Comment: The Christianity Today article has only trivial coverage. The article is about the failure of for-profit Christian websites, and it mentions in passing Lightsource.com as an example of one (among several) that failed. That is enough to prove that "Lightsource.com was extinguished", but not enough to prove that it is notable as a website. The same applies to all the other sources. By your rationale, every CEO of a .Com start-up that the NYTimes ever mentioned would be notable enough for a page, when certainly they are not. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Look at this way:  Could you write a meaningful article from the information provided in the links?  If not, then just the fact that the subject of the article is mentioned in them doesn't help to establish notability.  Every sentence in an article should, ideally, be sourced to a third-party source.  Although technically this is a requirement, it isn't enforced, as that would be unwieldy, but if you have to use sources which don't qualify under the reliable sources criteria, then there aren't enough valid sources to keep the article.  Corvus cornix 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. And advert is an advert. Vegaswikian 02:50, 18 October 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.