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. John254 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NameBase[edit]

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

Non-notable website, doesn't establish notably and at least two of the four sources actually deal with NameBase's claimed precedessor rather than the website itself. Alexa traffic ranking of 191,685 and the 2003 source is only a brief mention which seems to inherit its notability from Brandt rather than the website itself. -Halo (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable website, still a standard reference, and one of the great pioneers in free information. DGG (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you back that up with significant mentions of the site in reliable sources? I spent a good half hour looking for some, but pretty much all I find is articles based around mentions of Brandt, a few minor mentions of NameBase with references or old articles which don't actually refer to the site in question. Whatsmore, all the relevent info is already covered in Public Information Research with the exact same sources - I don't see the need for this article as it couldn't be expanded or merged. -Halo (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Four references in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial mentions don't make for reliable sources -Halo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While we could merge the two articles, Namebase has enough independent notability (sources that do not mention PIR) to stay, and there are definitely more than just the four sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the sources don't mention NameBase, two of the sources are trivial mentions based around Brandt (who apparently isn't notable). -Halo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• oh I see, so this is a WP:POINT AfD. Joy. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please WP:AGF. My only WP:POINT is that NameBase is not individually notable and that the interviews focus is Brandt who is best known for Googlewatch. I can hardly express my joy at having to reply to your straw man argument -Halo (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, OK; I thought you were playing the fool. If you are contending you know nothing about the history of the deletion of our biography of Daniel Brandt, I'll take you at your word. But that deletion had nothing to do with any of Wikipedia's policies. But that's an ugly can of worms. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I googled "www.namebase.org", got a 1/4 million hits and read half-a-dozen of the more reputable sources. I'd say very clearly notable! Sensiblekid (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you add them to the article. I also googled www.namebase.org and couldn't find any significant reliable sources. My original aim was to improve the article, but I quickly realised it couldn't be done, hence the AFD -Halo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Google harder next time. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment was very constructive and was vital to the topic at hand as well as this discussion. Oh wait, I forget WP:SARC, nevermind. -Halo (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't and still can't remember the essay link about the flaws with using Google as a research tool, but using amazing power of a device known as a "library card" I was able to add another source. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Sensiblekid, DGG and others. Easily meets WP:ORG. I don't know if this deletion was to satisfy Daniel Brandt but such reasoning would be highly unpersuasive. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. The reasoning there applies all the more because this is an article about the organization, not the individual. In the unlikely event that this article is not kept, a merge to PIR will make more sense than a deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nothing to do with Brandt, the website is non-notable. The organization is hence why I'm not asking for PIR to be deleted. Your argument that a website meets a notability guideline designed to be an organisation is frankly bizarre - it doesn't meet WP:WEB as there aren't multiple non-trivial reliable sources for the website. Why hasn't anybody actually addressed my reasoning? -Halo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The website in-so far as it is the database effectively is notable. I agree that website would be unlikely by itself to meet notability but taken together with the articles about the database it does meet it. There are many more sources not included in the article direclty that discuss Namebase (although not all are actually about this). But a glance at google news shows many others such as the Counterpunch interview and many others. In any event, that's an argument for merging to PIR not deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect outcome to PIR would probably be a fair course of action. -Halo (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The database is independently notable. If you want to propose a merge, this is the wrong forum. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above and the google search I just did. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems very odd to me there is any question over this well-known and useful resource. I was able to establish notability to my own satisfaction very easily. 1/4 million ghits on "www.namebase.org" of which a significant proportion are notable. I'm not going to go to the trouble of listing them here. Frankly I don't have the time and I don't really care that much. But here are one or two. : [1][2]

[3] [4] [5] [6]. Look up the rest if you care. It's not rocket science.Sensiblekid (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The first two and the last of those appear to be trivial mentions. The third however is very much not so and describes Namebase as being the "only" tool with certain capabilities. I think we've got more than enough sourcing at this point. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (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.