Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flippa

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 redirect to SitePoint#Marketplace. As this is a viable search term, and we already have an article on this company, discussed at SitePoint#Marketplace, a merge is the appropriate course of action. Such obvious merges need only come to AfD if they are contested. I would suggest the nominator is a little more bold in doing merges in future. And a note for Off2riorob that WP:Snow is only used in AfD for Speedy Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flippa

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

Unreliable sources do not pass WP:GNG. Alexa rankings do not pass WP:GNG. A sitepoint blog does not pass WP:GNG; ergo, this company does not pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nominator, it is snowing outside, brrrr. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd created this article Flippa in good faith after watching outdated information at Sitepoint and therefore updated it. I wonder if Sitepoint passes the criteria of WP:GNG and should also be tagged for deletion. The Sitepoint blog was the only official statement (more like an official press release) so I included it with other verifiable references, and most of them are WP:RS. You may carry on if you still think this article should be deleted. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Recently added a more reliable reference from TechCrunch, one of the biggest online technology blogs. --Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Alexa reference is only to verify site's alexa rankings. I've noticed most Wikipedia articles related to online sites cite their alexa ranking, for instance Engadget and Sitepoint itself. The reference from Sitepoint Official Blog is more like an official statement and/or an online company's way to disperse their official press releases. As far as the WP:GNG thing goes:

- "Significant coverage" The article has been backed up my a reference from top technology portals such as TechCrunch and an official statement. SitePoint article also cites the move of marketplace to Flippa.com (I've updated that myself).

- "Reliable" and "Presumed" TechCrunch and all other sources are reliable and written by notable, reputed editorial staff.

- "Sources" I've provided multiple sources.

- "Independent of the subject" I'm by NO means associated with Sitepoint or Flippa and an independent Wikipedia editor. Secondly, Flippa.com is the largest marketplace for buying and selling websites. Their official marketing slogan is "The #1 Marketplace for Buying and Selling Websites and Domains".
--Scieberking (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the notability guidelines rather significantly. Significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject is a single clause - each source has to be all of those. I am not implying that you are not independent of the subject, rather that sitepoint, who hosted the site, are not. Their official marketing slogan is irrelevant, and is not evidence of notability; they can write whatever the hell they want as a slogan. TechCrunch is a RS, but it's a single source - you need multiple sources. An official statement? Not independent. none of the other sources are reliable; killerstartups? blogging tips? I think not. Alexa rankings are irrelevant for notability, and have long held to be so. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Yeah, for the same reason, I've not even mentioned the slogan thing in the article, written it in a WP:NPOV with (at least one/ or maybe more) WP:RS and it does not make unverifiable, self-promotional claims. I think TechCrunch is a solid WP:RS and strong enough to save a small, informative Stub from deletion. Your thoughts? Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as I've said, it requires multiple reliable sources. You have one. Writing it in a NPOV style is all well and good, but not if the subject matter itself doesn't pass our standards of inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Hello Ironholds. I've added another WP:RS from CenterNetworks, a reliable online magazine which focuses on the web 2.0, Internet with news, reviews, interviews and conference coverage. The magazine, having been featured on Chicago Tribune, Reuters, Business Week etc., consists of qualified editors and journalists. For more information. Also CenterNetworks Magazine has already been referenced 40 times on Wikipedia.
~~Keep~~: Flippa stub now contains two WP:RS citations and I think it should survive and be kept. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how AfD works. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, despite your use of it above, and you cannot vote three times just by going "keep" in bold repeatedly. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could do for saving a small, informative stub with improving it, adding WP:RS and everything. All in good faith. Let's see what happens next. Thank you very much for your input. --Scieberking (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Scieberking: Only one "keep" to a customer here at AFD, so with respects, and not disturbing your comments, I have put a strike-through in all but one of your keeps. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schmidt. I will take care of that next time. --Scieberking (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sitepoint article, redirect. MURGH ^disc. 04:38, 3 January 2010 (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.