Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUFC.com

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 merge to Newcastle United. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NUFC.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. No coverage in reliable sources at all, so fails WP:WEB. The only mentions in newspapers (the Daily mail and a US local paper) were single lines and mistakes. Other than that the refs are to the site itself an web tracking sites. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To second John Blackburne's comments, the mentions in the newspapers were later corrected to the offical NUFC website. The page serves no purpose other than to give the impression the website has authority due to a Wikipedia page, it only serves to boost the sites search engine rankings and advertising revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.59.51 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website; lacking significant coverage. WP:GNG, WP:WEB, WP:V Chzz ► 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This short piece in the Daily Mirror is about a message published by this site, it is described in The Independent as "Newcastle's leading fans' website" and as "influential" in The Times[1], The Sun[2], the Daily Star[3] and the Daily Mail[4], and gets quoted in Sporting Life[5], The Daily Telegraph[6], ESPNsoccernet[7], Sky News[8] and The Northern Echo[9]. This may or may not amount to notability, but it certainly belies the nominator's statements that this site has had "no coverage in reliable sources at all". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment that is a marginal improvement, in that the mentions are not erroneous ones, but they are still trivial. The most relevant requirement in WP:WEB#Criteria is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (my emphasis), i.e. coverage that establishes notability should be largely or wholly about the site or some aspect of it. Trivial coverage is explicitly excluded.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Newcastle United. BUC (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.