Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijob 2

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 to delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijob

Previous AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijob, closed early as delete. This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 5. I've decided, just to keep things clear, to start over with a new AfD rather than simply reupping the old one. Please read the deletion review for more information. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD.
Use of wiki techniques to run a jobs board. Interesting as an innovation in technology application. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, self-promotion and a deliberate end-run around the April endorsement of the deletion of precisely this text. The creator is the site owner and has spent most of a year spamming his site on Wikipedia, it's been deleted by five different admins at three different titles and until it's rewritten by someone else we should nuke it, ban him and move on. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a comment on the article, or on the editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the site owner. I'd like to declare that there is some kind of personality clash between myself and Guy (above). This moderator seems to have taken a personal dislike to me - please take his points with caution!86.0.221.59 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, promotional article with uncited claims, weasel words and in passing references that appear to be just links to the site and not much else. Also COI concerns given the contents of User_Talk:Redsuperted who was asked to stop creating the article and appears to have created it yet again. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep has multiple reliable sources. could do with a wp:npov rewrite though. Jessi1989 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be enough reliable sources to support notability, but ideally I'd like to see more. Silverfish (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I looked at the quotes, they're all in passing as in "this is available". They're sources, but I don't think they prove notability in any way. *shrug* --Blowdart | ^talk 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prospects reference, American Chronicle reference and Ri5 reference (needs registration to access) don't seem to be just in passing, they are more substantial articles. I tend to agree about the other sources, although I think the references from Accoutancy Age, and The Guardian confer a bit of notability. Silverfish (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfish - there are more sources. I'm not going to add to the wiki itself(!) but see these - http://thecareersgroupconferences.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/final-2-speakers-confirmed/ (conference) - http://www.le.ac.uk/ssds/careers/bulletin.html (university of leicester - half way down page) - http://www.talentsmoothie.com/blog/category/generation-y/ (search for wikijob, kind of hard to find, but an article none the less). http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/careers/resources/onlineresources/weblinks/researchjobs/typesofjobs/finance 86.0.221.59 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't generally acceptable sources, and your leeds link is an in-passing mention again. Also you would do well to declare your conflict of interest here, it looks like bad faith otherwise. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Blowdart - but if you look above, you'll see I did already point out that I am the editor. Sorry again that you don't like the links - I was responding to Silverfish' request to see them. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean as the editor, but as you being Redsuperted and being requested not to recreate it before; but instead using an IP address now. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has anything to do with anything. I just haven't signed in. You all know I'm Redsuperted anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.221.59 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, and it illustrates massive bad faith in recreating an article deleted numerous times for spam reasons and one you were requested to let someone else create. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can think what you like, frankly. And P.S. Mr, the article was deleted twice. This was the second time. Numerous, is ridiculous. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of this article appears to satisfy WP:V and WP:N via the citation of multiple, reliable sources. The current article definitely needs a good overhaul though to make it read more neutral and encyclopedic. Wiw8 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Guy, Blowdart. One of the most persistant examples of linkspam on Wikipedia with no notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are sufficient for notability of the site. That it may have been spammed elsewhere on wiki, can be dealt with seartately. I vcan not see that there is any present linkspan. DGG (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four of the references sources are just mentions-in-passing, but [1][2][3][4] seem to meet the general notability standards of WP:NOTE. Needs its tone cleaned up, though. --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a stab at removing the "in passing" references, the opinion and unverifiable claims. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:40, 14 August 2008 (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.