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 Keep B1atv 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Encyclopedia Titanica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Original reason for prod was "Next to no content. Only serves to promote the website in question", which I still believe to be the case. The reason for contesting deletion was "Created to serve the incoming links", given by the article's creator, who mistakenly believed I had nominated it for speedy deletion. This doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for keeping the article, so have brought it to AfD. RFBailey 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: having looked it up on Google, I don't believe it passes WP:WEB. By all means use the site as an external link, but that doesn't mean we need an article about the site. --RFBailey 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I count 88 internal links to it. See here: [1] Which of the three criteria for deletion from WP:WEB are you quoting from? Please always cite which rule and not just the concept page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those 88 "internal links" are mostly citations: I'm not sure how they demonstrate notability.

As for "which rules", I can't see that it satisfies any of the three:

1. Apart from "this" (PDF)., I can't find any evidence of the site being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works;
2. I can't see that it has won a well-known and independent award;
3. It doesn't appear to be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators either.

--RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Keeping While specialized, the website in question is a non-profit website with significant trafic and with scientific significance. I added some content to the wikipedia entry as well.Kevin Borland, Esq. 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Although it's true that there are links to the Encylopedia Titanica in other Wikipedia articles, it's an example of the type of research tool that became feasible with high-speed internet, like Wikipedia, or imdb.com, or so many others. As Kborland correctly notes, it's non-profit, although that shouldn't be the criterion. Frankly, I'd like to see a category for web-based encyclopedias, whether they're privately edited (as in this case) or user-edited (as in the Wikipedia and other wikis that follow the same format). There's no such thing as too many research sites. Mandsford 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but do we need to have Wikipedia articles about all of them? --RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, if it is used 88 times in Wikipedia as a reference, it should have an article so people can judge the reliability of the site. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- as a stub at least. Has reference merit.JJJ999 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A thoroughly extensive website that has been covered in this article with ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and verifiable information from reliable sources. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article can use work, but then again, most of them can. "Almost no content" in an article created less than 2 months ago isn't a valid argument for deletion, the article can and will grow. It's a very well referenced and documented site which IS the source for reliable Titanic information and its notability is growing and will continue to do so. Personally, I'd much rather see WP time taken in expanding these types of articles than discussing whether to get rid of them. Wildhartlivie 03:11, 23 October 2007 (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.