Deletion of Memory Alpha (4th nomination)

Comment: The sources provided by Uncle G and Raitchison seem to me to be reasonable coverage. Yes, the article may be over-detailed with unsourced stuff at the moment and could use some rewriting; but I'm pretty confident that this wiki is notable enough to satisfy  on the back of the books and reviews provided. Additionally, JulesH's point about the difficulty of finding reliable sources amongst the huge amounts of other stuff is an argument in itself: even if one argues that this doesn't technically satisfy the wording of the notability ''guideline'', this is clearly ''the'' primary source of canon Star Trek information on the internet and is very widely used. It certainly feels, to me, to be notable as per the spirit of the guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Memory Alpha has had nontrivial coverage  in the Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying  . (I note that its  Alexa rating is  24787. Is that good
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'm not going to bold the word "keep" here because what I am going to say is not really supported by policy right now but I found it interesting that one editor said his search for sources was hindered by an assload of forum and blog postings mentioning the subject. As I recently said on Talk:Godwin's Law in response to someone who thought WP was "creating culture", the intent of  is to make sure nothing becomes notable '''because''' of Wikipedia. It should not be possible to say ''nobody knew me/us/it/them from Adam until we got a WP article''. If something is mentioned in enough forums, blogs, and Usenet groups independent of each other, I would say that it has become notable and therefore an article on that subject wouldn't significantly increase the level of the subject's notability. However, such a standard, if ever adopted, should never be applied to BLPs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Might I comment, then, that the lower the Alexa rating, the more popular the site? A 24787 isn't a very good score then. I obviously didn't want to say such a thing, as I am personally exhibiting , so feel free to ignore this comment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIG)

Comment: I see no way that this nomination meets  as the article's notable title should obviously lead to something here and so deletion is completely inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The Alexa rating makes me think of  and , unfortunately. And the "nontrivial coverage" is meager enough to be trivial
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS||WP:BIG)

Comment: Seems to meet notability standards under .  A quick book search led me to multiple books that reference this site: A few tutorials on blogs and/or wikis (example: ''Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms'' - {{ISBN|1412959713}}), a few Star Trek encyclopedias (example: ''Q&A (Star Trek: The Next Generation)'' - {{ISBN|1416527419}}) and at least one reference within the acknowledgments of a Star Trek fiction book (example: ''Last Full Measure (Star Trek : Enterprise)'' - {{ISBN|1416503587}}).  Granted these references are arguably trivial individually but as an aggregate should be sufficient
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)