Deletion of Universe Today (4th nomination)

Comment: I've taken a look at new sources, as requested. I see nothing to change my mind. "Relied upon", "authoratative" and "frequently republished" are not relavent to , only in-depeth coverage by independent reliable third party sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2011/3138.html I rely on Universe Today ... to give me an independent look at big news stories" appears to be a firm assertion of notability, and meets all the requirements of  - it is not a trivial mention (and nobody could reasonably say that such a firm and obvious statement of a website's importance to a staff writer of The Planetary Society is trivial) and is from an appropriate source. That we have such a source, however, does not mean the article is notable enough for a stand alone article, but the significance of that source should not be dismissed or downplayed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Looking only at "Universe Today" and Cain only turned up three reliable sources: October 2, 2006http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/siue-assistant -professor-featured-in-astronomy-podcast/article_d8b28afa-571e-586e-b3f5-13cd013b2616.html, one from Springfield State Journal-Register (November 21, 2006), http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/06/transit-of-venus-highlights-live-coverage June 5, 2012, only support the text, "Fraser Cain, founder of the space website Universe Today." However, when I searched for UniverseToday.com, I got more articles, going back to http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacedaily-99c.html September 8, 1999. Others found include: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/02/25/Dummy-to-test-radiation-outside-ISS/UPI-14091077744550/ February 25, 2004, http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/10/21/Titan-probe-to-listen-for-thunderstorms/UPI-18751098410883/ October 21, 2004, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Free+Color+Poster+of+Breathtaking+Outer+Space+Images+Now+Available+to...-a0137286286 September 24, 2005, http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=age&kw=universetoday.com+&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=10years&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=AGE06012730UNB6OT7PV January 27, 2006, http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/social-studies/article26380/?service=mobile March 10, 2008, http://www.allvoices.com/news/2572897/s/28995092-robots-allow-students-to-tinker-with-learning February 23, 2009, http://www.planetrss.net/84854/2010/3/1/33221106 March 2, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/humans-have-300000-brain-cells-for-each-neuron-in-a-fruit-fly-brain/article1380881/ October 19, 2010, http://www.yourdailyjournal.com/view/full_story/15943403/article-Saturday%E2%80%99s-Draconid-meteor-shower--big-storm-or-weak-display-?instance=home_news_lead October 7, 2011, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Saudi+Arabia+fears+oil+price+spike+on+Iran+tension.-a0277549851 January 19, 2012, and http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/OtherStories/Upgraded-Internet-has-more-addresses-than-stars-in-universe/Article1-868455.aspx June 9, 2012. However, even if you took all the info about Universe Today from these reliable sources and the ones cited in the above discussion and in the article, they would not add up to enough content to support a stand alone article under . In addition, there is no significant coverage in any reference. As for the keep arguments about Universe Today being important, even if true, there's not enough info from reliable sources to put in an article on Universe Today. An essentially blank article on Universe Today won't do anyone any good. Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: for me the lack of indepth coverage in reliable independent third party sources as required by  and Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET are the deciding factors. I came here by seeing a notification (as per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)