Deletion of HPANA

Comment: From : ''"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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: The site did ''not'' win an award from USA Today, it merely got mentioned as a "hot site",http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/2004/2004-11-02-hotsites.htm among hundreds of other websites.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/archive-2004.htm  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  requires (I find only 444 google links http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22movies.com+award%22&btnG=Search and no mention on Wikipedia). Also, no reference to the site actually winning the award is provided
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

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 . Your new source doesn't help either. It's just a comment from the author of the Harry Potter books on her own website
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)