Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RocketHub

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 no consensus. Even ignoring the sockpuppets, there is no consensus to delete. v/r - T P 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RocketHub

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

During this article's history, a speedy deletion tag has been improperly removed five times by various anonymous IP editors, and the article has had anonymous promotional edits. Article appears to be carefully sourced to avoid scrutiny in spite of numerous speedy delete nominations. Since the CSD tags have apparently never been up long enough for an admin to notice (and I would have declined based on the sourcing), I have semi-protected the article and brought it up here for further reveiw. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. National and international press coverage in Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, CNN, The Economist, Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal etc.; culturally significant in the amount of artistic and entrepreneurial projects enabled.

Useful.

Notable.

It looks good.

Passes Google test

Existed for nearly a year

Pageview stats are impressive - on pace for 6,000 in last year. - http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/RocketHub

Multiple editors.

Good amount of information.

Reliable sources.

It's in the news.

Global.

Lots of sources.

Obviously plenty of reasons to keep. Article unfairly targeted. - VladVuki

Note. The comment above was written by the creator of this article. Coverage needs to be more than minor. Google test, globalization, pageviews, appearance, and length of existence are not relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Note I am only one of many of the creators/editors. Coverage is actually quite major - e.g. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/crowd-sourcing-a-brand/2011/03/08/ABHm6GS_story.html and USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-07-Crowdfunding-a-career_n.htm - all points mentioned are relevant according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions - VladVuki

Let's look at the sources in the article:

American Songwriter: decent coverage although it appears to be promotional.
Tribeca film: trivial mention.
Tonic: blog coverage, irrelevant.
Then come 3 sources from Rockethub, self-published.
The Economist: trivial mention.
Mi2N: Press release, another type of self-published source.
Another reference to rockhethub's web site.
Grammy365: another blog posting.
The Wall Street Journal: trivial mention.
Mi2N: another press release.
Another reference to American Songwriter: Trivial mention.

Contrary to VladVuki's assertion, the New York Times, CNN, and Huffington Post aren't cited at all. The only significant coverage is from the first reference to American Songwriter. That hardly qualifies under WP:SIGCOV, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. We don't have that here, in spite of the length of time this article has existed. The Washington Post one looks OK, but the USAToday one is more trivial mentions, not an article covering the company. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage has been sufficiently established in multiple sources. Obviously article needs to be edited to include additional citations in New York Times, CNN, Huffington Post. USAToday article includes quotes from subject and notable specifics.

NPR: trivial mention. Include the others and I'll be happy to close this AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples include: NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/03/02/134194007/crowdfunding-cuts-out-most-of-the-middlemen; Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/fringe-festival-impresarios-find-angels-online-via-rockethub-kickstarter.html; Crain's New York: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100907/SMALLBIZ/100909929#; etc. - VladVuki

Keep. The site has had more than a few mentions in reputable news sites as indicated in the citations. Unfair target of deletion - same level of insightful/informational content as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeL1976 (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." - WP:OTHERSTUFF

However, in this case it doesn't seem to be part of a cogent argument. If other articles are also deletable, that is not a reason to keep one of them because others exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective argument by Amatulić based on opinion. - VladVuki

Delete This looks to be purely promotional with nothing noteworthy about the organization. West Eddy (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An especially weak Keep. The site has had more than a few mentions in reputable news sites as indicated in the citations. Unfortunately, they're hidden underneath a mess of purely promotional fluff and press releases. So it does appear to notable according to WP:WEB but should probably be reduced to something more stublike. Several Times (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague description: a grassroots online crowdfunding platform for creative projects. Did you notice the buzzword? I thought you could. Article would appear to be written by a publicist who's made a superficial study of Wikipedia, which explains its extended attempt to claim inherited notability by celebrity name dropping. References appear mostly to be blurbs on trade related blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on guys. This is a no brainer - they have a ton of credibility, major press, social impact, etc. And the mere fact that RocketHub helped keep James Portnow and Extra Credits afloat (http://www.rockethub.com/projects/2165-extra-credits) makes it a keep. - MarkPinler55 —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Credibility doesn't justify inclusion. Social impact doesn't justify inclusion. Helping people doesn't justify inclusion. Press does justify inclusion, but only if the article cites the specific sources. Several Times (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OTHERSTUFF all those form an overall argument for a keep. AND there are a ton of major press pieces with this company as the lead. ~~Seems like a no brainer keep to strong keep here.~~ - MarkPinler55 —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't say that credibility or social impact justify inclusion. Nothing on that page states anything about what justifies inclusion. Rather, it attempts to explain that an argument for or against deletion should be multifaceted and should consider all available options. Some arguments for or against deletion will hold more water than others; you'll generally find that the best arguments are those supported by concrete examples. I already voted to keep this article and the nominator has offered to close the deletion discussion pending the addition of reliable sources. These sources do appear to exist. We all just want a verifiable, neutral article. Several Times (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Striking MarkPinler55's vote. He's either a puppet or a brand-new user who is somehow knowledgeable enough to find an AFD discussion, vote in a similar way to other obvious sockpuppets, and carry on a conversation using WP's somewhat weird markup language. I'd just delete it like I did the other sock votes but I don't want to orphan the worthy replies made by a good editor. CityO fSilver 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Particularly notable are This Bloomberg News Article and this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there's enough coverage here from enough sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mercilessly delete promotional and uncited material. This whole subject area is subject to a lot of spammy junk from startups looking to promote themselves, but based on the sources we should have an article about RocketHub. Steven Walling • talk 01:13, 16 September 2011 (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.