Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhero Hype! (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. Carrites analysis is right on the button. Closers expect to see specific sources and the only ones provided have been refuted as tangential or mentions Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero Hype!

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

Insufficiently notable website. Article was previously AfD'd in December 2007 with the result of "No consensus". For over three years now, the article has been tagged with {{Notability}}, but no proper sourcing has ever been provided. It appears this site has never "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (see WP:WEB#Criteria). Thank you. — Satori Son 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly the article has been in poor condition for a while, but a quick search shows it is notable enough to be referred to on MTV (here), SFX (here), RTE (here) and Digital Spy (here) amongst others in the past couple of weeks, and I know they are given a number of exclusives because I remember putting one in the article for the upcoming X-Men: Destiny game. The sources are there it just requires someone to sit down with the time to turn it in to a decent article. BulbaThor (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware this website has received very brief mentions from time to time, but I still have not seen any in-depth coverage by reliable sources which would even remotely meet the standards of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its notability is visible, however the article needs proper attention. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:35, 2 August 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, v/r - T P 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with user Satori Son: the few mentions I can find are very brief, casual remarks. I see no level of depth that would establish notability required by GNG. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, it appears to be part of a professional media company; its indicia reads, "CraveOnline Media, LLC is a division of AtomicOnline, LLC, an Evolve Media Corp. company". And I recognize at least one byline, that of Edward Douglas, as that of professional journalist. However, the lack of a masthead that would list staff and the lack of an address for an editorial office makes me wonder if, despite the corporate support, this may be a site of solely user-generated content. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 & Question If the decision is to keep, please note there's no exclamation point in the logo, and that the title of the article should be "SuperheroHype.com". Also, if the decision is to delete, what's to be done with cites to it in various articles, mostly about comic-book movies? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it has been mentioned in reliable sources, but that's all they are - mentions. Certainly not significant coverage, and therefore not enough to meet either WP:GNG or the alternative WP:WEB. Nor are the alternate requirements of the latter guideline met. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 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, BusterD (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Consensus still seems mixed, but as opposed to closing a second time as "no consensus", it makes sense to allow a bit more time to mature the notability discussion. BusterD (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found are all trivial, and all of the other "keep" !votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I took a glance at the nearly information-free, unsourced stub of a piece and I thought this was an easy call for deletion. Then I ran a simple Google search for the exact phrase "Superhero hype" and came up with 1.65 million hits and that made my head swim a little. How can there be so much out there relating to a site that ends up in an article this bad? It's a bit of a mystery... Does the lack of a swarm of comic book nerds here making an impassioned defense mean that the comic book nerds have given up on Wikipedia? And if so, what does that mean? Is it worth sifting through 1,649,854 blog posts to find a few kernels of substantial independent content that will save this wretched stub? It's all very puzzling. Ironically, and it will probably drive Mr. Hammer nuts for me to say this, the simple argument WP:ITSNOTABLE seems to me to be a reasonable one. Then again, that doesn't cut the mustard with most AfD closers, who want to see (a) content worth saving and/or (b) independent sourcing. This piece has neither. And I'm done blathering without an opinion either way. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not leaning for or against, but just commenting that a number of those hits appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, keyword farms, and comments on forums and blogs. Not seeing a lot in the way of journalistic print/web periodicals. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this website merits a Wikipedia article, so does every website in the world that provides information about anything of interest to anyone. You would end up trying to pack snapshots of much of the web into Wikipedia. The storage cost alone would bring Wikipedia to an end. "Noteworthy" must mean something bigger than "existent" or else it means nothing. Ornithikos (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CraveOnline. Failing merge, redirect to parent company. There are a vast number of hits, mostly self-referential and crosslinking to other Crave enterprises like ComingSoon.net. A surprising number of news hits which say something like: "Celebrities X & Y talked their upcoming book/movie/project to Superhero Hype and said this about the book/movie/project" (2009), reliable newspaper or reliable website." I initially found that compelling. Then I read Crave owns Sherdog, which has become regarded as a real news source by members of the Wikipedia MMA and kickboxing interest. IMHO, this is a company which manufactures buzz for a living, but I can't source that. I'll guess sources could be found in the inside-marketing/advertising periodicals unavailable without a password or a hefty subscription price. Since that's my opinion, I'm stuck with the evidence I did find, insufficient because of trivial/tabloid/promotional coverage only. Merge to parent target. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing a marketing presence in Wikipedia is a major goal of every online marketing organization that knows what's happening. Every conceivable form of hidden persuasion and simulated notability can be expected, like applauding in an echo chamber, as in this case. Ornithikos (talk) 04:54, 19 August 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.