Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Numbers (website) (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. Tone 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Numbers (website)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing in here suggests multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage exist for this site, and that is required to have an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Seems to be a fairly referenced website but it could be cleaned up a tiny bit. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) User is a recreation of  banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Both article and talk page give a few of independent sources that are reliable. The Template:Findsources has to fail considering the trivial name of the website. Querying for the numbers website is bound to fail (website by the numbers is as good as any to show what can be found). Try rather search, news, books and scholar (i.e. searching for The-Numbers.com) - this will multiply the numbers of hits more than tenfold, in the case of the book search even almost a hundredfold. JM.Beaubourg (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, with respect to the creator who has done good work, none of these sources appear to be actually about the site, they just namecheck it. That was why it was deleted last year, and it does not seem to have changed much. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 13:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article makes two assertions of notability. (1) "Its data [...] is used by many websites and associations."  Two sources are given for this claim.  The first is the Journal of Statistics Education, which namechecks the site once as a secondary source of data validation.  The second is a directory page at Screen Australia, which lists The Numbers among a very large number of similar sites without suggesting Screen Australia in any way "uses" it.  Therefore I feel the claim of notability is not made out.  (2) Quantcast ranks the site as "43,267", the significance of which is not explained in the article but which in any case cannot possibly found a claim of notability (being 43,267th at anything seems inherently non-notable).  Therefore the article makes no claim of notability backed by significant, independent reliable sources and fails both the presumption under WP:N and the defence of that presumption. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 2 November 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.