Deletion of Universe Today (3rd nomination)

Comment: As a popular astronomy web site that has been online for more than a decade, one would ''expect'' that this site would meet the . As noted by Irida and FuFoFuEd, these sources do in fact appear to exist. Cleanup-type issues as highlighted in some !votes here are not good reasons for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Despite two previous AfDs and over five years of existence (this article was created on 11 January 2006), this article does not cite any |reliable sources. The sole source is http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/universetoday.com this Alexa link. Tantamount to a directory entry, Alexa links cannot be used to establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic. A http://www.google.com/search?q=%22universetoday.com%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 Google News Archive search and a http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22universetoday.com%22 Google Books search return passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires that topics receive nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. No one has been able to provide even one such source. The article currently fails the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. As to Wikipedia:Notability (web), I do not believe passing it would allow this article to remain. As {{user|S Marshall}} wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12#Kate Oxley: DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I '''endorse''' the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status. I agree with S Marshall's position on subject-specific notability guidelines' being trumped by the general notability guideline. Therefore, I support deleting this article for failing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No indication of notability; no discussion of the site in |reliable sources. For journals, we expect at least appearance in standard indexes, and preferably more. If this web site had won some kind of award, as Badastronomy.com has, then it would certainly cross the line, but it hasn't. In fact this article is just an ad for the site. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.72.139|202.124.72.139
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: http://m.tpt.aapt.org/search?possible1=physics+education&possible1zone=keywords&q=+&searchtype=searchin&faceted=faceted&searchzone=2&displayid=AAPT&key=PHTEAH&conditions=physics+educationkeywords&page=15 this page links to an independent source that, in all likelyhood, covers the subject in detail. Unfortunately it's locked up behind a paywall, however the summary indicates that UniverseToday is a major focus of it. Since UniverseToday was, in my opinion, close to meeting  without the source I found, I think this pushes it well over the edge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Cunard makes a compelling argument about how the news website lacks evidence of notability.  I'm inclined to agree.  There's nothing wrong with the primary-sourced information, but it doesn't contribute to fulfilling  or .  Also, let's not get into debates about Fraser Cain here.  Save it for another discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:GNG)

Comment: I thought about it some more, and decided that  should really apply here. I know this is a popular website and one that I like. However, I considered the likelihood that a reasonable amount of material can be gathered to make the article encyclopedic and I realized that likelihood is tiny
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This site is used very often as a source in Wikipedia (61 articles link to this page, a lot more mention it). It definitely meet . So for me, that's something |notable. Others may disagree, but I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely know what they are dealing with. Also per Iridia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)