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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HPANA[edit]

Non-notable website. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works and has not won a major award. Delete for failing WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awards from USA Today and Movies.com establish the site's notability, so the references are not needed to establish it (only for fact verification). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The site did not win an award from USA Today, it merely got mentioned as a "hot site",[1] among hundreds of other websites.[2] WP:WEB clearly states that a site needs to receive non-trivial coverage, which doesn't include "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". The "Movies.com award" or whatever it is, is neither "well-known" nor "notable", as WP:WEB requires (I find only 444 google links [3] and no mention on Wikipedia). Also, no reference to the site actually winning the award is provided.--Peephole (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are twelve sources, so it passes the notability criteria. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And all sources are either 404's, don't even mention the site, provide only a passing mention or aren't reliable at all.--Peephole (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - At least two sources ([4] [5]) with more than just a passing mention. I have not checked all of them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The first provides us with only 2.5 sentences about the website and the second doesn't even talk about the site.--Peephole (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Sorry about the second source; I thought hpfansites was part of HPANA. Here is another source [6]. Also, what do you mean by "2.5 sentences"? --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I meant that's all the coverage the website gets in that one article. It's a good example of "trivial coverage", which isn't enough for establishing notability, you should read WP:NOTE. Your new source doesn't help either. It's just a comment from the author of the Harry Potter books on her own website. --Peephole (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - In the first source, there are two paragraphs about the site and it is mentioned in another paragraph after them. How is that trivial? And what's wrong with the source being a comment by the author of the website? It is not published by the subject (HPANA) and HPANA is not affiliated with the J.K. Rowling so it is an independent source. I have already read Wikipedia:Notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment From WP:NOTE: "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. We need reliable, secondary sources to establish that J.K. Rowling saying stuff about a fan site is notable. The other source you provided, deals mainly with the webmaster of the site, not the site itself. The site itself gets only a description of two sentences and then there's half a sentence that mentions the shite was temporarily shut down. --Peephole (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - I thought I was looking for sources which establish HPANA's notability, not the notability of "J.K. Rowling saying stuff about a fan site". If you want sources which talk about JKRowling.com see [7] and [8]. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - No, you're not following, Rowling saying she likes a fan site does not in the least make the site notable, unless, there's major coverage of the act of Rowling giving recognition to that fan site, that might lend some notability to the subject.--Peephole (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - So if a newspaper, say the New York Times, talks about a website in detail, it cannot be used as evidence of notability (not evidence of the website being mentioned) unless there is another source saying that it was mentioned in the first source? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment No. Again, Rowling's comments don't establish any notability. Articles in newspapers talking about the site (in detail) do establish notability. If the subject of an article in the NYTimes is Rowling's comments about the site, that might help establish notability, because it's an article in a major publication, not because of what Rowling said. --Peephole (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - "Articles in newspapers talking about the site (in detail) do establish notability" but the site being talked about on JKRowling.com (in detail) does not? According to which policy? --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a site recognising HPANA being awarded the fansite award [9]. It's a list of links, and is not being used to establish HPANA's notability but to show that the award is recognised. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a .pdf of links to Harry Potter sites. What we're looking for is stuff like newspaper articles, providing more than trivial coverage (which excludes mere mentions by means of only a couple sentences). Read WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:NOTE if you don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We're not looking for articles from other Harry Potter fansites or comments from Rowling (I just looked, and the award you're talking about isn't even an award, just some comments about several fansites).[10]-Peephole (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read those guidlines. I was telling the truth when I said I had, before. I believe JKRowling.com is a reliable source, since it is not affiliated with HPANA. I have posted it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#JKRowling.com. The purpose of the PDF list was not to show that HPANA is notable (I already knew it was a list when I posted the link and I said " It's a list of links, and is not being used to establish HPANA's notability". It was to prove that the subject did win the award (it says it is an award in the PDF file). Of course, it (the list) probably won't pass the reliable sources critera, but if the message you were trying to get across was that JKRowling.com is not reliable, then you could have just said it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An actual review of the given sources only shows fleeting mentions of one paragraph or a sentence. No source is dedicated to the site itself. If this is notable, then so is every old lady having a birthday mentioned by the Today show weatherman. Miami33139 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect all of these to List of Harry Potter web sites. They're collectively notable, but, with the possible exception of MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron (website), aren't quite individually notable. Note that just about all of these sources talk about HPANA in the context of being one of several Potter sites. When you have something that falls just short of notability, a larger conglomerated article will be of higher quality and prevents the loss of worthwhile material. THF (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (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.