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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Celebrity Cafe[edit]

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

Delete - I am not even going to give a reason why this article needs to immediately be waived from Wikipedia. I will just quote a part from this Wikipedia page here I go: "TheCelebrityCafe.com receives approximately 4.9 million readers every month.[citation needed] They have received accolades from numerous reputable publications and have been featured in such newspapers as New York Newsday, The Chicago Tribune and The Houston Chronicle.[1] One of the most frequently visited celebrity publications on the Internet, TheCelebrityCafe.com is rated as one of the top three entertainment magazines by Google.[citation needed]" - Really? This is a black mark on the credibility of Wikipedia that we must get rid of. (Knox387 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Article created by purportedly paid editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whilst the site appears to be used as a source for showbiz gossip with moderate frequency but does not appear to have obtained notability independently per quick googling. The tone of the nom isn't very helpful though, if you object to some uncited facts remove them (incidently they seem to have been taken from the website itself [1]), if you think this is WP:N or spam then you could put that in the nomination. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's an article by a business columnist in Newsday, October 18, 2010: (unfortunately only the first few sentences are not behind the pay wall): "The CelebrityCafe.com celebrates 15th birthday". --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked it's Web Archives it appears the domain was purchased in 1999, and it states it has been running since 1995.^[1]^[2]. I went to the site's about page, and try to get some more confirmation about this site. It's less then 5 people on the staff page, with really little credits & it's home-operated business. It also says that Google ranked it top 3 magazines.. I was not aware that Google ranks websites, and after my research I am still unable to find this true. An examination through Site Explorer showed me that the site is receiving less then 200K links, that's very poor for a website that's been up since the late 90s. Most of it's links, are coming from Wikipedia pages as well. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=thecelebritycafe.com&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=s (Knox387 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Incidently heres the alexa data [2], I don't know how to grab a count of unique readers but the alexa demonstrates its a top 18,000 site and top 5,000 in the US Bob House 884 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa analyzes traffic via who ever is using the Alexa Toolbar. Are you using the Alexa Toolbar? If so, by entering that website you give them "credit". Top 20,000 websites does not mean anything. Notice that all the websites that are focused towards Webmasters & Internet articles (SEO, SEM, PPC, CPC etc) would often rank 100x higher then websites that are by far more popular. Why? Because webmasters usually have the Alexa Toolbar installed. I hope this clears some thoughts. The site does not receive 4.9M uniques, if it did then it would have a huge recognition. Sites just around 1 MM usually get picked up by AOL, MMC for millions of dollars. This article, has no notability, it is poorly written and it was obviously created as an advertisement. (Knox387 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

So are you saying that the celebrity cafe website has just made up this readership figure? That seems like kind of a big claim.. is there not some way to prove or disprove it? Regarding Alexa, the validity or otherwise of their sampling method isn't in dispute, I was posting the data mainly to corroborate one of the claims made on the 'about us' page from which the 4.8mil claim is made. (Although admittedly I don't really know a lot about the way alexa works or validity of its data). Bob House 884 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doubting, I am 100% sure that they have made this figure up. If they would receive 4.9m unique visitors every month they would be sitting in the same building as Barry Diller in the IAC Group building in New York City. Trust me. I have made a simple comparison through Compete.com, it will explain to you the situation. Gawker.com doesn't pass the 5M uniques, so does NYmag.com.. When I first joined Wikipedia as a contributor here I focused on what I know and that's blogging, interactive magazines, online magazines, SEO, search engines, PHP, CSS, HTML, etc. I have been trying to do only what I know best. Please see this and remember No one knows the traffic unless measured directly. Compete doesn't Alexa doesn't, so does QuantCast - please read this http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thecelebritycafe.com+gawker.com+nymag.com/ and this http://www.quantcast.com/thecelebritycafe.com (Knox387 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference included in the article is dead, but the wayback machine shows it was this [[3]]. It seems to be just a paragraph, written in 2002. The Newsday article mentioned by Arxiloxos might be more substantial, but i can't read it.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The onus is on the nominator to provide a reason to delete. It is our general editing policy to keep articles which have no egregious fault such as copyvio. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the nomination (which is short on valid reasons and long on rhetoric), because I see no evidence that this website meets either WP:GNG or any of the specific provisions of WP:WEB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 26 March 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.