Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BikerOrNot.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BikerOrNot.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable social networking website that fails WP:GNG. BikeOrNot.com has not been the subject of sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. There are citations of a few marginal sources -- blogs, and some news-ish web sites, but it is routine coverage. See WP:ROUTINE. Essentially a paragraph or two saying "here is a new social networking site. check it out." The most significant source is something called Tech News World [1], which credulously parrots the site owner's claims that, "The site has 540,000 registered users and around 100,000 active users". If higher profile internet media, motorcycling media, or the mainstream press had done some diligent reporting, it would be sufficient, but this is all highly amateur, and peripheral, and does not look like independent news reporting. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I ride a motorbike. I've never heard of this site. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The above comment that one biker doesn't know of the website is really irrelevant. I am a biker and I know of the website, and so do a lot of my fellow riders. I've added another source from a paper magazine with an online version. I've seen articles in other paper magazines, but I've yet to find an online version to include. As for the membership claims, they are noted in a lot of social media blogs over time. As for the original source being the company itself, who else could possibly provide any reputable source with accurate membership counts? Additionally, if you visit the site you can anecdotally observe there are a lot of members, but I realize this is not a useable source for the article. Iglooflame (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that sources be online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources, "Offline sources are just as valid as online sources." Just do your best to provide enough information for another person to locate the source. Usually at least publication, title, and date, if not page, author, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you want to go the whole nine yards and make it perfect. With regard to citing the company, yes, they might be the only source in for some information, but for purposes of notability, deciding to keep the article or not, we need third party sources. For example, a third party audit of web traffic would support a claim that the site is popular. But if you have a lot of paper sources, cite away. Don't worry if somebody has to go to a library to find a copy. Clicking on a URL is easy and convenient, but a little hard work never hurt anybody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a reference to the Alexa [2] ranking for the site. It seems inline with other social networks listed on Wikipedia. As well, the sites listed near it, ranked by Alexa rating, have similar registered users versus Alexa ranking, lending additional credibility to the so-called credulous sourcing.Iglooflame (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any luck on citing those paper sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added one additional paper source, and I think the existing sources stand on their own. This social network is at least as notable and popular as most other social networks listed on Wikipedia, as mentioned above, per Alexa and other verifiable third-party sources. These same sources and their visitor stats lend credence to membership claims of the company and the third party references already listed. My understanding of WP:Notability is the references are merely to establish "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention." The sources themselves are not objective evidence, but only an indication that such evidence exists. As the guidelines further state, "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." So, right now it looks like we're just at a standstill -- you say it's not notable and I say it is. I'd personally appreciate additional voices before I do additional research. Iglooflame (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any luck on citing those paper sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a reference to the Alexa [2] ranking for the site. It seems inline with other social networks listed on Wikipedia. As well, the sites listed near it, ranked by Alexa rating, have similar registered users versus Alexa ranking, lending additional credibility to the so-called credulous sourcing.Iglooflame (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that sources be online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources, "Offline sources are just as valid as online sources." Just do your best to provide enough information for another person to locate the source. Usually at least publication, title, and date, if not page, author, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you want to go the whole nine yards and make it perfect. With regard to citing the company, yes, they might be the only source in for some information, but for purposes of notability, deciding to keep the article or not, we need third party sources. For example, a third party audit of web traffic would support a claim that the site is popular. But if you have a lot of paper sources, cite away. Don't worry if somebody has to go to a library to find a copy. Clicking on a URL is easy and convenient, but a little hard work never hurt anybody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the book Facebook Advertising it says "Take a look at the two ads in Figures 3-10. NuSpark Marketing conveys the serious message of a one-stop marketing shop that can handle a variety of marketing jobs, while BikerOrNot.com conveys the fun, social hangout that their community offers.". It's rather misleading to say BikerOrNot was "featured" in this book. In fact, their name was only mentioned in passing. In WP:GNG it says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and a justified correction on the article. However, belittling individual sources and references does not speak to the WP:Notability of the article in general or contribute to this WP:Afd conversation. It’s still just as notable as most other social networks listed on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging whether a source is reliable enough, or whether the coverage is incidental or significant, is what AfD discussions are all about. If consensus forms in favor of the sources, the article is likely to be kept, but if other editors agree the source is too unreliable or the coverage is too superficial, then that tends toward deletion.
There may indeed be other social networks at List of social networking websites which would not survive a deletion discussion; I haven't checked. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not suggesting the majority of your comments are not relevant to WP:AfD, only the most recent specific comment about my error in sentence verbiage regarding one particular source.
I still content the sources listed on their whole qualify as WP:RS for WP:N. Furthermore, I assert comparing this article's notability to other similar social networks on Wikipedia is a fair and reasonable method to determine notability qualification. If I was comparing the site to one obscure article that would be one thing, but I am comparing it to a majority of similar articles on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not suggesting the majority of your comments are not relevant to WP:AfD, only the most recent specific comment about my error in sentence verbiage regarding one particular source.
- Judging whether a source is reliable enough, or whether the coverage is incidental or significant, is what AfD discussions are all about. If consensus forms in favor of the sources, the article is likely to be kept, but if other editors agree the source is too unreliable or the coverage is too superficial, then that tends toward deletion.
- Delete - so far nobody has come up with any reliable secondary sources attesting to this subject's notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 16 sources, plenty of which are independent and reliable. Taking into consideration only the independent sources, like Alexa [3], this social network is just as notable as most other social networks on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think Alexa counts as a secondary source. Other than Alexa, what would you say is the best source which shows this site's notability? In any case, an appeal to consistency is not relevant. The only question is whether this subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 16 sources, plenty of which are independent and reliable. Taking into consideration only the independent sources, like Alexa [3], this social network is just as notable as most other social networks on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong| prattle _ 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all of the sources that are not the company itself or its blog are WP:RS and relevant to WP:N. Current these are: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Also, why do you think Alexa [15] is not a valid source? I'd encourage you to read WP:Alexa, as it's actually very relevant when combined with other sources, which are present in the article. Iglooflame (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At most I'd say that this site has received minor coverage in specialist and local press. None of the links above give any impression of enduring notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all of the sources that are not the company itself or its blog are WP:RS and relevant to WP:N. Current these are: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Also, why do you think Alexa [15] is not a valid source? I'd encourage you to read WP:Alexa, as it's actually very relevant when combined with other sources, which are present in the article. Iglooflame (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no indication of notability. Von Restorff (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The social network is a niche biker site with half a million members and half a million fans on Facebook. It's been featured in plenty of biker and social media specific blogs and magazines that are verifiable as secondary sources. As they and their members host events nationwide, they have also been mentioned in newspapers around the country. It’s a top 50,000 website on Alexa. There are 1,000,000 results for "bikerornot" on Google. I'm not sure what else is needed or expected for general notability in this category. It seems like the critics for this particular article are being overly harsh compared to other deletion discussions and other articles I've seen included. Iglooflame (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2012 (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.