Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek Shui Living

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. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources, not how great the subject is or how well the article is written. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Shui Living

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

Promotional, but borderline case with a long history of COI by an editor who just changed his/her name from "GeekShui" to G33kedout. Most coverage peripheral or trivial. Second para reads like an advertisement by somebody hoping to sell the company to a bigger firm. Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name change was done to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, which does not exist. The addition is not done for promotional or commercial purposes. I am more than willing to document the fact that the article was written by me, in the discussion section of the article. This was the next logical step, but I have not, as of yet, had the opportunity to do it. It is simply a matter of documenting the existence of something that was created and is recognized by many as a credible source of information. While the readership may not be as large, the premise is no different than that of large, technology news sites, such as ReadWriteWeb, Mashable or Engadget. Furthermore, these news outlet are known, commercial entities. Geek Shui Living is not. It is an entirely non-profit site that simply seeks to share knowledge with similar-minded readers. No link has been placed from any other website to the Wikipedia article. With regard to the comment regarding the perceived "trivial" or "peripheral" nature, it is inequitable to assume that because a site has not received acknowledgement from a larger outlet, their significance is any less. Recognition, to include sourcing of GSL articles, by external websites with no affiliation serve to document that GSL's content is well-written and trustworthy. Additionally, the purpose of the second paragraph is differentiate between GSL and other tech news sites. The entire existence of the term GSL is founded in an actual idea that seeks to address the increasingly widening divide between an individual's real and virtual life, in modern society. Unlike most sites that are simply stood up to deliver news, for the purpose of eventually earning a profit, GSL, as a site, grew from the original concept. It is not incorporated in any state or country. Therefore, there is nothing to sell. No compensation, monetary or otherwise, is received by any contributor to the website. Finally, the comment regarding a "long history" of rewrites is incorrect. The original article was posted only but a week ago. Since then, the only changes effected have been those suggested by the various editors, in an attempt to ensure all Wikipedia requirements were successfully satisfied. No misleading, unfactual, or exaggerated information has been posted at any time. As with any article, the development of it is a process, which may take time to turn into a polished product. While I understand the concern expressed, I am confident that no conflict of interest exists and that Geek Shui Living is exactly the type of content that Wikipedia intended to include among its collective body of socially-significant information. Based on the inclusion of the aforementioned tech news websites and others like them, the deletion of Geek Shui Living would amount to inequitable treatment. Reconsideration of the deletion, based on the points brought forth and clarifications detailed, herein. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this information. G33kedout (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — G33kedout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. Criteria 1 requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I could find no independent coverage from reliable sources. A search of Google News finds only items FROM the GSL blog, but nothing ABOUT the blog. Alternate criteria 2 and 3 do not seem to apply here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (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) 01:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have been probably speedy deleted on grounds of no credible indication of importance, and also as entirely promotional. I see nothing substantial here. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google that looks for the exact phrase "Geek Shui Living" but excludes results that include "geekshuiliving.com" and any other domains that contain information posted about Geek Shui Living, by Geek Shui Living, returns 21,800 references (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22geek+shui+living%22+-geekshuiliving-com+-skreened-com+-randomgeekshui-com+-linkedin-com+-cafepress-com+-twitter-com+-youtube-com+-posterous-com&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22geek+shui+living%22+-geekshuiliving-com+-skreened-com+-randomgeekshui-com+-linkedin-com+-cafepress-com+-twitter-com+-youtube-com+-posterous-com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=9d5df9e295f138e9). While this may not be the same volume generated by the related (but admittedly larger) sites such as ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, or Engadget, it does give credence to the idea that Geek Shui Living is something that many sites around the web (and the people who run them) feel is "substantial" and "of importance". To this end, the nature of the entry limits interest to those who have seek information regarding technology, gadgets, etc. The repeated commentary regarding the "promotional" nature of the article has no foundation, since the Wikipedia articles of other tech news sites and blogs referenced herein (as well as in my previous comments) do not meet the strict criteria against which GSL is being judged, either. If GSL is an entirely promotional article, this means that every such Wikipedia entry should be nominated for deletion. Yet, they are not included in the list for discussion for deletion. Unfortunately, the comments regarding speedy deletion seem to be entirely subjective in nature. There is no argument regarding the fact that the article does not have any obvious, socially redeeming value, but if one were to apply such a standard across all Wikipedia articles, how many would remain published. The question that begs to be answered is what harm the GSL article does by being published in Wikipedia? Is the information false, slanderous, or offensive? Have claims been made that cannot be substantiated? It informs people about a topic, which may interest them. It provides a different angle than that of simple tech news consumption. GSL seeks to not only provide the latest technology news, but more importantly to stimulate people to ask questions and use to critical thinking skills to develop their own educated opinion. Therein lies the importance, credibility and substantiality. GSL does not stand to benefit financially or otherwise from being included in Wikipedia. As of today, a Google search for the phrase "Geek Shui Living" returns 33,900 results (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22geek+shui+living%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), which means that despite its youth as a website, it is well-indexed. No promotion is necessary through Wikipedia. For that matter, both the sheer number of Wikipedia entries and the statistically-improbable possibility that someone may happen upon it preclude the possibility that it could be used as a promotional platform. Additionally, if the number of search results returned is compared against the number provided above, it reveals that 64% of the results that mention the phrase are extraneous to GSL's site. This means that people have taken notice. It also means that people who may happen across GSL's Wikipedia entry and find a new place to read thoughtful, concise and objective information regarding technology topics, are the ones who may benefit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's editors are apparently not among them. Obviously, people will not take the time to write letters of thanks to Wikipedia for inclusion of GSL, but they will come back to Wikipedia the next time they seek objective information. It appears that, judging by the commentary thus far, this discussion is unfortunately one in which GSL cannot convince any editor (other than the first one who reviewed the article) to examine the issue as a disinterested third-party would. Thusly, it seems that if there is no personal value in it for the editor, there must be no personal value to any of the millions of people who use Wikipedia on a daily basis. Therefore, from Wikipedia's vantage point, it must be deleted. Each Wikipedia editor, armed with their own opinion (which any Wikipedia submitter has to trust as being objective), will make their recommendation to keep or delete it. Based on the complete lack of demonstrable consideration of the points brought forth in my previous entries and the repetitive theme of "I see no value", this will be the last attempt to obtain fair and equitable consideration. Ultimately, this is saddening because, despite being filled with blatantly obvious, promotion by political candidates and mindless pop culture content focused on the latest one-hit wonder (all of which make the Wikipedia cut), I still returned time and time again to Wikipedia to search for information, simply because I thought of it as a real-world encyclopedia made by the people, for the people. It would seem, though, that, judging by the sequence of events in this article's history, this is not necessarily the case anymore. A quick glance at many other nominations for deletion show that no one cared enough to even defend the entry they submitted. Yet, GSL has gone to great lengths to succinctly explain what it is and why it deserves to be kept. Sadly, this seems to have little bearing on the ultimate judgement. In conclusion, there will be no more attempts to justify that which has already been justified, through readership, reputation, and statistical data. Ultimately, GSL existed before its Wikipedia article and will continue to exist long into the future, regardless of whether or not it does in Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. G33kedout (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think these deletion discussions are based on personal opinion - but they are not. There are very clear criteria for notability of a website, defined at WP:WEB, and as I pointed out above, Geek Shui Living does not meet them. That does not mean that the site has no value - I'm sure it does. It just means that Wikipedia has standards for what is included here. It has to have standards; Wikipedia would lose its value as a reference if everybody could post just any old thing. Meanwhile, your posts have hit almost every one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: pointing out that there are other pages just as bad (the shorthand for that one is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); asking what harm it does (WP:HARMLESS); saying that people will find it WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL; and of course the WP:GOOGLEHITS test - in which you found lots of Google hits but none of them is from what Wikipedia considers a WP:Reliable source. If you click on the links I have provided here you will learn more about why people are taking the position they are about this page - and why your arguments are not changing any minds. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the essay WP:TLDR Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the entire discussion regarding this deletion, and have several points/questions I would like to offer. I am not certain I am doing this correctly, I have just signed up for an account to be able to do this, and while there is a vast amount of instructions, I may not have absorbed them all. Firstly, allow me to state that while I have only created this account today, I use Wikipedia regularly, without the need to log in, therefore it was not necessary to create the account until now. Please do not discard my commentary on the matter out of hand on the assumption that I have been "recruited".

I thank those who have participated for the links they have provided for reference, as they have been most helpful to me in trying to understand the argument being made for deletion. I can understand the apparent frustration of the original contributor, who has been given arguments (aside from the last one) that fall under "just pointing at a policy or guideline" without any constructive feedback as to what the editor felt was needed to bring the entry up to standards. As for the last entry, I found it to be to most clear, concise, and informative of the arguments for deletion.

Allow me to open with the term "useful", which has a narrow definition as applicable to this discussion. In reading this, I note that encyclopedias are noted as having content culled because it is not considered "useful" in the context of an encyclopedia. As I understand it, in order to determine that context, one must first consider the intended use of the project as a whole, to determine what will be considered "useful" within that context. Many use Wikipedia as a research facility, allowing them to quickly find many articles, entries, and external links based off a single keyword search, without ever having to leave the project itself. Were we to use G33kedout's example of his article on the Library of Congress indexing tweets being featured prominently on a related and well-known tech site, consider the following. Given that it is current events (loosely defined) and of a socio-political nature, this topic could easily be the subject of a research project. Using a keyword search of "Library of Congress twitter" returns a result including the entry in question. Thus, I (as a hypothetical researcher) would read the entry, using the external and internal links to gather information on this event during the course of my research. I would deem this "useful" as a user.

My question is this, and if I am wrong in asking, I apologize as I must have missed the rule. What context are you defining Wikipedia to be in? I realize that this argument will be considered biased. I am in favour of the entry's inclusion, therefore I am applying my arguments to that end, much as those who have gone before in this discussion have done the opposite. Yet, I still humbly submit my arguments for your consideration, and would appreciate any clear feedback that can be given. I am new to this process,so detail is important to me learning if I have done something wrong in posting this entry. Michaelwpg (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TLDR Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, article doesn't really demonstrate any true notability (though the LoC discussion looks interesting), references on the article are either passing mentions or meta-index pointers. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion that I can see. The references given on the page are aren't from reliable sources or are immaterial (Alexa rank, Google tech news). I suggest the author copies his work to his user space and recreates the article in mainspace when the site becomes notable. — Bility (talk) 21:22, 14 March 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.