Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th 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   no consensus. See User:Sandstein/AfD closing for methodological explanations. This is a borderline case, as recognized by the previous AfD's closer. The issue is whether our notability criteria are met. A majority of opinions think that they are (8 keep to 4 delete and 2 merge opinions, according to the auto-count). Most "keep" opinions are relatively weak, in my opinion, because they address the sourcing situation only in the aggregate, which they consider sufficient for notability, and do not address the nominator's very detailed analysis of the quality and depth of the sources. On the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, I am inclined to close this discussion with a deletion. However, because the evaluation of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, I am reluctant to unilaterally dismiss the holistic approach pursued by the "keep" side outright. On the whole, therefore, I can't find in this discussion a sufficiently clear consensus to delete the article, and must apply the principle "when in doubt, don't delete".  Sandstein  06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Universe Today
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The previous nomination for deletion of this article was on 11 August 2011 by, who wrote: "This article about a website provides no indication of coverage in independent sources that would provide notability. I was able to find news listings from the site and descriptions of it in non-independent material (e.g., in the book the site distributed), but only a few passing mentions otherwise. Survived AFD in 2006 with arguments based on its Alexa rankings and the fact that it was mentioned in blogs -- stuff that would not be considered good arguments under current AFD standards. RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)" His words remain true eleven months later.

Delete this article per Verifiability. Despite two previous AfDs and over six years of existence (this article was created on 11 January 2006), this article does not cite any third-party reliable sources. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return passing mentions. Notability requires that topics receive nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. No one in the previous AfDs has been able to provide even one such source. The article currently fails the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. As to Notability (web), I do not believe passing it would allow this article to remain. As wrote at Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12: "DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status." I agree with S Marshall's position on subject-specific notability guidelines' being trumped by the general notability guideline. Therefore, I support deleting this article for failing Notability and Verifiability.

Analysis of the sources in the article:   – Alexa is not a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight over the page. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.  – Universe Today's privacy policy is not a third-party reliable source. 

 – the source source states: "Wow! The Universe Today is ten years old!  It’s one of those websites that I took for granted for many years, until Fraser Cain gave me the outstanding opportunity to write for it on December 21st, 2007. Because the author has been intimately involved with Universe Today, he cannot be considered an independent source."  –  Universe Today's contact us page is not a third-party reliable source.   – the source states:  Google Book states that there is "1 page matching 'Universe Today' in this book". A passing mention does not meet the "significant coverage" required by Notability. Furthermore, as Universe Today's founder, the article's author Fraser Cain is not independent.    – This Dictionary of Minor Planet Names states: In this dictionary of minor planet names, Fraser Cain is mentioned because a planet is named after him. The mention of Universe Today is tangential. It is insufficient to pass the requirement of "significant coverage" at Notability.   

– at first glance, this source appears to suffice. However, the author writes: This source is neither reliable nor secondary. Its lack of neutrality makes it an unreliable source so it cannot be used to establish notability. </li> </ol> <li>

– the source states:  That Universe Today is tangentially cited as an example does not establish notability. </li> </ol> <li>

– this source is being used to verify "Several peer-reviewed papers have been written about the impact of Universe Today in space-related news." in the Wikipedia article. The source states: In addition to this being an egregious misrepresentation, the source is not secondary and has said nothing about Universe Today's impact in space-related news. </li> </ol> <li> – see #9. This article shares a coauthor, Fraser Cain, with the above source. </li> <li> – the source states: This passing mention does not establish notability. </li> </ol> <li> – the source's author is the same as source #7. </li> <li> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221044336007.htm – Universe Today receives some coverage: "Fraser Cain realized on Mar. 2 that his 12-year-old astronomy website had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days." "Like every Web business, Universe Today gets a sizable portion of its traffic via Google, which accounts for 65 percent of U.S. Web searches, according to Nielsen." Universe Today began appearing lower on results pages when Internet users googled astro-related topics. So Cain logged onto a Google forum to testify on behalf of his site's quality. "If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do," Cain wrote. Elsewhere in the forum, distraught business owners—financial advisers, lingerie salespeople—raged and pled for clemency. "I'm a smoldering cinder from last week's napalm strike," wrote one publisher. At Universe Today, Cain says he's not waiting for a response from Google. If astronomers can figure out black holes, his thinking goes, Webmasters can handle Google. "We're in the dark right now," says Cain. "But complaining about it doesn't do any good." I do not consider this to be "significant coverage" of Universe Today. Titled "Matt Cutts: The Greenspan of Google", the article is mainly about Matt Cutter and Google's search-engine optimization. Universe Today is used to frame a discussion of search engine optimization. It is, though, much better coverage than the previous 11 sources. Excluding the quotations from people affiliated with Universe Today, there are roughly five sentences about Universe Today in this 36-sentence article. </li> <li> – the sole coverage of Universe Today is: The remainder of the article discusses various other websites such as Embargo Watch and  Faculty of 1000 (F1000). </li> </ol>

In the previous AfD, a participant wrote that this page mentioned "an independent source that, in all likelyhood, covers the subject in detail". The page was behind a paywall so could not be viewed. I uploaded the article to https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kdgcZh and invited other participants to make their own judgments about whether it established notability: "Unfortunately, it does not. That's a monthly column about web resources for physics and astronomy teachers. The resource focused on, in one paragraph, is the podcast Astronomycast, and the article merely mentions that Astronomy cast is hosted by Fraser Cain, who edits Universe Today. There is no detail about Universe Today...in fact, nothing of substance is said. This article cannot be used to establish notability.Astrocog (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Agreed with Astrocog; this source does not sufficiently describe the subject in-depth to fulfill the general notability guidelines. <b style='color:green; font-family:Corbel;'>I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)    Yes, but this, plus all the others, and the endorsements from other organizations like The Planetary Society, does fulfill the GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)"

Implausibility of a merge to Fraser Cain: Contributors in the past have urged a merge to Fraser Cain, the founder of Universe Today. This is untenable because Fraser Cain was deleted in September 2011 at Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain for failing the notability guidelines.

Alleged factual errors: Shortly after the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus", noted that there were several factual errors in the article:

Tha article claims that the forum of Universe Today allows "discussion" of against the mainstream ideas. This is not accurate. The fact is that the rules of the forum require against the mainstream ideas to be defended by the original poster by himself against any and everone who wishes to dispute, disparage, and dismiss. The moderation of the forum claims that "this is how science works", this is like a 'peer review', this is like defending your thesis before a college review board". This is not true. Legitimate peer boards are composed of experts in the subject matter and who make specific criticisms. Not just anyone in the world with a keyboard. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim of "millions of viewers per day" is false. At any given time there are as many as 400 unregistered viewers and usually up to 60 registered viewers and as few as 10 registered viewers. this information is on the first page of the forum.

The forum claims to have as many as 60,000 members but this includes all members that have ever registered including banned members, inactive members and spammers. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This page is about discussion of the article, not critique of the website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I discussed this at User talk:Cunard/Archive 8, where I wrote: "Universe Today is not a borderline article, in my opinion. No reliable sources nontrivially cover the website. In May 2006, the closing admin at Articles for deletion/Universe Today wrote: '...this comes very close to a consensus to delete...' Over five years later, the article excessively relies on unreliable, non-neutral, and primary sources, and there are egregious misrepresentations of the sources. This bombardment of the article is unhealthy. Because there is little useful content in the sources, assertions are fabricated and falsely reinforced by the sources. ... I am not merely mechanically upholding the notability guideline. I believe that the verifiability policy and the no original research policy, both of which defend the integrity of this site, should be upheld. Cunard (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)"

Discussion with the previous AfD closer:

The previous AfD closer wrote: "What I would be very much in favour of, would be a general discussion to establish if a) significant use within Wikipedia as a reliable source can in any way be taken account of when considering notability (personally I think not formally, though it may be a factor to take into account); and b) clarity on 'significant' coverage - if a source has only one sentence, but the sentence says 'this is the most notable Foo in the world', is that significant?" I wrote: "The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26 in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to 's comment: This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines.  The source doesn't have to be 'important' per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way.  For a website example, Economic Principals.  I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)" I strongly agree with 's comment. The defense of an article based on how many times it's cited on Wikipedia is weak and not grounded in policy. It is rebutted in the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regarding your second example, an RfC would likely conclude that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If an article gave the subject the passing mention ("Foo won the prestigious X Web Award."), it would be presumed notable per Notability (web) #2: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." If a source said that "Foo want the Nobel Peace Prize" or "Foo received the Pulitzer Prize", and there was no significant coverage, the topic would still be considered notable because of the prestige of those prizes. I can find no sources that give such prestige to Universe Today. In other words, none of the sources say anything "significant" ... Myself, I see neither "significant coverage" nor anything along the lines of "Universe Today is the most notable website in the world". Cunard (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think that quote comes close to saying that "this is the most notable Foo in the world". That a The Planetary Society writer tangentially mentioned it twice does not establish notability. Her statement contributes not to the notability of Universe Today, but to vouching for its reliability (Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26).

Because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Notability, and because the article fails the policies Verifiability and No original research, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum: The article has been the target of sockpuppetry in the past; see the deletion log for this AfD and Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily/Archive and Long-term abuse/Universe Daily. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum to addendum: The article has been the target of sockpuppetry from detractors of the website; see Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily/Archive: "Exobiologist is a new account that could easily described as a WP:SPA with a grudge on Universe Today; see his derogatory statement at AfD and his edit warring over speedy deletion tag removed by third-parties, something that appears to fit the MO of Long-term abuse/Universe Daily. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have notified the previous AfD participants: (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff),  (diff), and  (diff) of this deletion discussion. I have not notified, , and  because the IPs seem to be dynamic IPs and the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for me the lack of indepth coverage in reliable independent third party sources as required by WP:GNG and NOT are the deciding factors. I came here by seeing a notification (as per Cunard immediately above) on another users' talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per the mind-bogglingly researched and reasoned explanation of the nominator, and the supplemental contributions of people like Protonk. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The comments about socks above may convey an incorrect impression. There is a long term abuser who is fascinated by various things, one being forums where astronomy is discussed. That person has abused the forums and Wikipedia (and is banned at the forums and here), but is in no way connected with the Universe Today website. There is no reason to mention the activities of the abuser here—they are totally irrelevant for an AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While they previous presence of socks on an article bears no weight in an AfD decision, commenting on their previous presence can be helpful in helping editors who are trying to understand the tortious history of this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but to just mention socks with no explanation may easily be interpreted as a suggestion that someone with a connection to the website has tried to puff up this article (that's the normal situation). In this case, it's quite different, and while links were given, a very large amount of reading would be required to work out that the socks have attacking the article (and promoting their own fake websites). Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is probably the longest nomination statement that I've ever seen on an Afd. While I applaud the nominator's desire to make a clear case, I really think he/she went overboard here. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: "I rely on Universe Today ... to give me an independent look at big news stories" appears to be a firm assertion of notability, and meets all the requirements of WP:GNG - it is not a trivial mention (and nobody could reasonably say that such a firm and obvious statement of a website's importance to a staff writer of The Planetary Society is trivial) and is from an appropriate source. That we have such a source, however, does not mean the article is notable enough for a stand alone article, but the significance of that source should not be dismissed or downplayed.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "A multitude of interesting audio programs with important value for one's learning are now available on the Web. In the category to which the previous mentioned Science Friday program pertains, there are for instance The Naked Scientist Online (n.d.); Nature Podcast (n.d.); and Universe Today (n.d.)" from Finding Your Online Voice:Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators by J. Michael Spector. That is now two independent and reliable sources asserting the importance of the website.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of citations to Universe Today in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy is worth noting.  And, while this is tangential and requires interpretation, I find this evidence in The Tungus Event, Or, The Great Siberian Meteorite by John Engledew, that Universe Today publishes new theories by notable figures such as Edward Drobyshevski which are then discussed elsewhere, to be significant.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  09:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The website is frequently cited on Google News by a range of sources including Discovery.com and Scientific American. Most of the Google News hits are to Universe Today itself, though there are plenty of hits to other sites.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  09:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The primary notability criterion does not deal in assertions of notability. It deals in actual notability, which is in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  People's assertions of how they use Universe Today, numbers of times that Universe Today is cited as a source, and incidental "for instances", are irrelevant to the primary notability criterion.  What matters is how much the sources describe, document, and analyse Universe Today in depth.  It's not about whether someone says on xyr web log that xe relies upon Universe Today, or the hit counts that you can wring out of a Google News search.  It's about whether people writing about this subject give enough depth of coverage to make an encyclopaedia article, and actually provide knowledge of the subject.  Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand the borderline nature of the evidence for notability, and the concerns that prompted this and previous AfDs, however, on reflection, I feel that the assertions of notability I have shown above are within the GNG criteria, which combined with the amount of citation to the website indicates its significance and notability within the space news community. The article needs a clean up, and I would commit to helping out if consensus is that the article is kept.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  09:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See above for how you've conflated assertions of notability with actual notability. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very thorough nomination, however SilkTork makes a persuasive arguement. Add in that Universe Today content is reprinted/syndicated in publications such as The Christian Science Monitor, and this interview with Fraser Cain in Search Engine Watch from last month. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  13:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those points address the fundamental issue of in depth sourcing that makes for an encyclopaedia article. SilkTork's "persuasive argument" was in part a source (source #8) that said that the web logger relied upon Universe Today.  It's used in the article to source a statement saying that that person indeed relies (but not solely) upon the WWW site.  If this is in-depth coverage, then: How come it supports exactly one sentence in the article after all these years? And what knowledge have you as a reader gained from reading an encyclopaedia article saying that one person relies upon this WWW site amongst others?  Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hmm, there's a certain irony in the fact that we're debating the notability of this site while at the same time we're using it as a reference on a multitude of other articles. As usual, I suspect there's something not quite optimal about WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it's that Wikipedia articles relies on notability as the inclusion standard, while Wikipedia sourcing relies on reliability as an inclusion standard, and the two are very much different. (If they weren't we'd have tonnes of book articles on textbooks) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. (Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.) Shrug. RJH (talk)
 * Keep- I agree with SilkTork. I normally don't like adding together a bunch of less-than-optimal sources and calling them, collectively, substantial enough for an article. But in this case I think it's the right way to go. There is no controversial, promotional, or dubious content in the article and the fact that so many other aricles use UniverseToday as a source makes it sensible to cover it here. Also strongly protest the deletion of a legitimate merge target just to facilitate deleting this one. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunard has drawn my attention to the last part of your statement. He is concerned that it appears to infer a motive which is not supported by evidence. I don't think you intended to give that impression. From reading the prior discussion on Cunard's talkpage, and the deletion itself, what is clear is that Cunard felt that neither this nor Fraser Cain are notable topics - and the consensus of that AfD was that Fraser Cain was not notable. Cunard did ask me after I closed the previous AfD on this topic as No consensus, if he could nominate it again, and I advised him that I was not in favour of such a move, but that it wasn't against policy. I think it is clear from the detail of the nomination that Cunard had put a lot of thought and research into this AfD, and your link shows that he cleared with me that nominating again was within policy. I don't think there is an appropriate order in which articles can or should be nominated for deletion, and multiple nominations can be confusing in themselves. SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  17:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Stuartyeates and Orange Mike: Thank you for reading through my detailed nomination. Would you take a look at SilkTork's additional sources and determine whether they, in your view, are enough to establish notability? Thank you. Reply to Johnuniq: I have added an addendum to my comment above explaining that the sockpuppetry is from detractors of Universe Today. I did not elaborate upon the sockpuppetry because I believed the link to the AfD's deletion log unambiguously demonstrated the sockpuppets' desire to delete this article, not puff it up.  Reply to Mark Arsten: A comprehensive AfD nomination was necessary to analyze the deficiencies in all the sources. I consider this to be a clear-cut case for deletion, but some users have perverse interpretations of Notability that permit passing mentions to establish notability.  Reply to SilkTork: "I rely on Universe Today ... to give me an independent look at big news stories" was source #8 in my analysis above. The source actually says "In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories." The tangentional coverage in which Universe Today is name dropped does not "mee[t] all the requirements of WP:GNG". Whereas in-depth secondary analysis of Universe Today would satisfy WP:GNG, a name drop with no analysis specifically about Universe Today does not.  "A multitude of interesting audio programs with important value for one's learning are now available on the Web. In the category to which the previous mentioned Science Friday program pertains, there are for instance The Naked Scientist Online (n.d.); Nature Podcast (n.d.); and Universe Today (n.d.)" from Finding Your Online Voice:Stories Told by Experienced Online Educators by J. Michael Spector – Universe Today is name dropped with two other audio programs: The Naked Scientist Online and Nature Podcast. There is no secondary analysis about Universe Today's audio program or the website itself. The lack of nontrivial coverage about Universe Today renders the source useless in a Wikipedia article. It can be used to cite the fact that J. Michael Spector mentioned Universe Today (along with The Naked Scientist Online and Nature Podcast) as being among "[a] multitude of interesting audio programs". But it cannot be used to cite why it should be considered an interesting audio program. The inclusion of this information in the article is not particularly helpful to readers.  The Tungus Event, Or, The Great Siberian Meteorite states: "Recently, E. Drobyshenski of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Universe Today website 27 March 2009) has proposed a new adjunct to the cometary theory holding that a piece departed from the main body of a comet busily grazing the Earth's atmosphere and began a comparatively slow descent." This is a passing mention. Universe Today is used merely as a citation. There is no secondary analysis about the article itself or the website.  The number of citations in Universe Today in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy and the frequent citations in Google News are irrelevant when considering Notability. As  writes: "What matters is how much the sources describe, document, and analyse Universe Today in depth."  Reply to Uncle G: Thank you for explaining the heart of Notability and why the sources that mention Universe Today fail to meet the guideline.  Reply to Eclipsed: That Universe Today is reprinted/syndicated in the Christian Science Monitor does not satisfy the requirements at Notability. This interview with Fraser Cain is primarily a primary source because most of the content is derived from Fraser Cain himself.  Reply to RJH and 70.49.127.65: 70.49.127.65, your explanation about the divergence between Wikipedia's notability and reliability standards is an excellent explanation about why some sources are reliable but not notable, while others are notable but not reliable.  Reply to Reyk: Fraser Cain was not a "legitimate merge target" because the topic failed Notability. As  wrote at Articles for deletion/Fraser Cain: "We definitely need more sources to keep this article, though the one from JPL does fine at confirming the statement about 158092 Frasercain. If that's the only valid source, though... yikes. I find it hard to believe that this subject isn't notable, but if there aren't sources, then that's that." Because discussion of a merge of Universe Today to Fraser Cain would be a distraction from discussing the merits of Universe Today, I nominated the Fraser Cain Wikipedia article for deletion because it, too, failed Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you mislabel a "distraction" I call a possible alternative. If a magazine and its editor are not potential subjects for a merge, I don't know what is. An article doesn't need to meet the GNG to be merged into another, and I have no idea where you got that notion. Demanding that two parts of a potentially notable subject be treated separately and deleting them one at a time is not much different to dividing an already notable subject into enough pieces and deleting them one at a time. I think it's clear from the discussion I linked to that you have your heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that you need to eliminate all the other options. I do not like that attitude. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "An article doesn't need to meet the GNG to be merged into another, and I have no idea where you got that notion." I have never stated that an article must meet the GNG to be merged into another. I categorically disavow this opinion and have never subscribed to it. This strawman argument is unpersuasive because I have stated that neither Fraser Cain nor Universe Today passes Notability. Merging one non-notable topic into another is undesirable. If you believe Fraser Cain was wrongfully deleted, you are free to submit a review at DRV. The statement that "you have your heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that you need to eliminate all the other options" reeks of ungrounded bad faith.  Attacking the nominator rather than focusing on the article and the sources at hand usually happens only when one's position is weak. It is a red-herring tactic that I hope will not distract AfD participants. Cunard (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've taken a look at new sources, as requested. I see nothing to change my mind. "Relied upon", "authoratative" and "frequently republished" are not relavent to WP:GNG, only in-depeth coverage by independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources as a group represent significant coverage in my opinion. As discussed above, the nominator's violation of WP:GAME by sequencing their actions to maximize the perceived probability of deletion merits note, as well. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunard has drawn my attention to the last part of your comment. I have commented on the discussion referred to above. I feel you may have been emboldened by the above comment to make a more direct personal statement than you would normally. Commenting directly on people rather than the issue under discussion can create an unpleasant environment. An assumption of the nominator's motives is generally not welcome and helpful in an AfD - we are here to discuss the sourcing and notability of an article topic, not engage in personal slights.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would say "merge" if I knew of a suitable destination. Over the course of the previous AFD, editors found enough to nudge it to the margins of notability, but not enough to make a particularly useful standalone article. Probably the best solution would be for this and several similar articles to be merged into a List of astronomy websites article. That way each site could get the single paragraph it deserves, instead of attempts to pad out article length with references to minor mentions. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I have created List of astronomy websites. The guideline at Stand-alone lists states: "A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group." Because the guideline permits the inclusion of subjects that fail the notability requirements, I have merged the entire Universe Today article into the list with the exception of the "What's Up" section. I merged the entire article even though some of it is fluff and trivia that should be deleted. Rather than delete the trivia myself, I ask a proponent of retention to do so. SilkTork, I expect you to keep your promise above to clean up the section. ("The article needs a clean up, and I would commit to helping out if consensus is that the article is kept.") Some examples: "Several peer-reviewed papers have mentioned Universe Today as being a space-related news website.[9][10][11]" – this sentence was included with a bombardment of sources to inflate notability.  "In 2008 the site was briefly banned for about a day from Digg.com, and then unbanned.[19][24]" – trivia included to inflate notability. This has little encyclopedic value to the readers.  "In March 2011, Businessweek reported that the site had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days after a change in the page ranking algorithm of Google." – this is tangentially related to the website.  At Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61, the closing administrator wrote:

"There is broad agreement that merge and redirect arguments are valid for AfD and should if possible be settled in closure, rather than deferred to the article's talk page for more conversation after." I nominated the article for deletion when I noticed that none of the sources provided nontrivial coverage of the subject. The bombardment of sources to inflate notability resulted in inclusion of non-encyclopedic trivia and misrepresentations (see this correction by SilkTork of a misrepresentation introduced a year earlier). I maintain that the topic fails Notability per my analysis of the sources above and ask that this AfD decide whether there is consensus to enforce a merge/redirect to List of astronomy websites. Cunard (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was unaware of this discussion and just AFDd the new list. I've withdrawn that nomination to let this discussion play out, but in its current form, I feel that this list violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and with somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. -- W.  D.   Graham  16:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I created the list by relying on Lists of websites and failed to take into consideration whether it violated WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is meant to complement Category:Astronomy websites by including both notable astronomy websites and non-notable astronomy websites that have received tangential coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a good compromise position for this AfD: It dissuades users from bombarding the article with poor sources, trivia, and fluff to create a façade of notability. Instead, at List of astronomy websites, the non-encyclopedic information can be removed in favor of retaining only a short encyclopedic summary of the website. Please do not withdraw that nomination. List articles are not my area of expertise, so perhaps an AfD can attract experienced users to refine the inclusion criteria of List of astronomy websites so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if, at the end of seven days, the list cannot be improved to satisfy the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies, then it can be deleted and the discussion at this AfD can focus solely on whether Universe Today can be kept or deleted. I request that this AfD be relisted by the reviewing administrator after seven days have elapsed, so that Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites can come to a conclusion before a decision is made here. Cunard (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unambiguously notable, keep. Sources clearly establish notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the deletion arguments are nothing but copy-pasta from the 3rd nomination, I'll copy-paste my replies from the 3rd nomination
 * "You know, not every source is present to established notability, many are there because of WP:V. In particular, WP:PRIMARY, explicitly states 'A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.' Saying 'Ha! You used the site itself to source basic claims made about it, like who's in charge, and who's the editor proves it's non-notable! We should have a peer-reviewed third party source to establish that Nancy Atkinson is in fact the senior editor at Universe Today' is utterly ridiculous. Likewise sources that like are dismissed with the baCK of the hand because you can only see one sentence from a Google excerpt is just nonsense. The full article's available and covers UT, BA, (more specifically the BAUT foms) very extensively, as part of conferences held by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. If you bothered to read it, you'd see it's far from promotional material, it's a rather terse analysis of the behaviour of BAUT forum users, as what it means for online astronomy communities in general. But you know, you're absolutely right, being the biggest astronomy news site out there means = not notable enough for Wikipedia. That makes sense."

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I see nothing more than passing mentions.  It sometimes happens that an important, or influential thing among a small group of people is just not something that is often talked about in third party coverage.  The simple solution is to write about it if you are in a position to write about it in a way that would satisfy our notability guidelines.  And don't sell out to something that's going to be paywalled, either.  Gigs (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the people citing the use of O'Neill seem to forget that Discovery News is a published source with an editorial board, not just a zine. The opinions of O'Neill may be in praise of the resource, but the facts are verifiable. While this does not assert notability, it does show that the rationale of the nominator is flawed, and that notable sources may exist. It also appears that all the participants in this debate are non-astronomers and may not have closely looked for sources. Deleting now would be premature. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I addressed the O'Neill sources in source #3 and source #7 as being insufficient to establish notability because he works for Universe Today. I have closely searched for sources and have been unable to find significant coverage about Universe Today. This comment doesn't indicate why Universe Today should be retained as a separate article. Cunard (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you fail to realize that O'Neill has to go through an editorial board to get his information onto Discovery News. The fact that he happens to be a part of the team is immaterial if his writing has gone through a published source. Even if you disregard this completely, remember that the IAU has recognized Universe Today by naming a minor planet after it. That's no small achievement and clearly asserts that the planet is notable. Your comment is like asserting that Michio Kaku is not notable because he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, and then the Wall Street Journal happened to cover him later (this really happened).

It's evident that you're not an astronomer, Cunard. Your argument has clearly been shown to be a strawman, and the consensus among people who are astronomy regulars on this encyclopedia is that the article should be kept. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I draw people's attention to, which came out of this discussion and should be considered under the same umbrella here. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I find Cunard's analysis flawed in many particulars. I am somewhat astonished to see this back here yet again - the article is cited to peer-reviewed sources, there's a minor planet named because this site has made a notable astronomy outreach contribution - the IAU doesn't hand out names like popcorn, the individuals involved have to have made notable contributions of some kind. As per Headbomb, I stand by my Keep from the third nomination. Iridia (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The IAU offers naming rights to the dicoverer(s), I believe. Looking at the reference given, one of the descriptions on the same page is "is the grandchild of the discoverer". This is not a notable achievement. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: I am used to them coming to my attention in a professional context, when x professional astronomer or y significant amateur are recognised for their contributions, which has been the customary usage of the right to name. If one works in the field, getting a minor planet is normally a compliment/recognition by colleagues. Dunno what's with grandkids etc, there seems to have been a bit of it in that naming batch. Iridia (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For example: "Astronomers often use the names as an acknowledgement of someone’s contributions to science or culture."


 * Keep Above is the claim that this interview with Fraser Cain can be ignored as a primary source, but the key point from that interview is valid: the Universe Today website "is currently one of the most popular astronomy blogs on the net" (the opinion of the interviewer—and much more than puffery as the interviewer is clearly impressed). Such a conclusion is grounds for establishing notability, particularly when combined with the refs in the article. Each item is only a weak indication of notability, but this is not a bureaucracy with a precise formula for determining notability—the spirit of WP:GNG is satisfied by the links given that the article is not a promotion or puff piece, and that the subject is of encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looking only at "Universe Today" and Cain only turned up three reliable sources: October 2, 2006-professor-featured-in-astronomy-podcast/article_d8b28afa-571e-586e-b3f5-13cd013b2616.html, one from Springfield State Journal-Register (November 21, 2006), June 5, 2012, only support the text, "Fraser Cain, founder of the space website Universe Today." However, when I searched for UniverseToday.com, I got more articles, going back to September 8, 1999. Others found include: February 25, 2004, October 21, 2004, September 24, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 10, 2008, February 23, 2009, March 2, 2010, October 19, 2010, October 7, 2011, January 19, 2012, and June 9, 2012. However, even if you took all the info about Universe Today from these reliable sources and the ones cited in the above discussion and in the article, they would not add up to enough content to support a stand alone article under WP:GNG. In addition, there is no significant coverage in any reference. As for the keep arguments about Universe Today being important, even if true, there's not enough info from reliable sources to put in an article on Universe Today. An essentially blank article on Universe Today won't do anyone any good. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2012 (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.