Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:28, 22 September 2016

Everipedia

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

Article WP:OWNed by a single user who removes maintenance tags after shuffling links around. Every ref is an interview fluff piece and several make rather ridiculous claims (e.g. the INC.com interview: "Everipedia is disrupting Wikipedia.") Author keeps citing Breitbart and Huffpo blogs despite being told repeatedly that these are not reliable sources. Nothing establishes notability because the creator of the website was directly involved in the writing of every ref.

Also contains WP:PROMO (for the site itself as ostensibly better than WP), WP:SYN (for the preceding reason and the links to the Ben Carson vandals), WP:POV for editorializing a joke made by Jimmy Wales, and WP:WEASEL ("it is said to") when referring to unverified claims made by the creator. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage beyond self-promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete the closest thing to a reliable source I can see is this, which doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG threshold alone even if it is found to be reliable and intellectually independent (both of which are doubtful). The behavioral and content issues mentioned in the nomination are not good reasons to delete the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The INC article is by a user who pumps out a different native advertising listicle every 2 to 4 hours. I highly doubt it's an independent source. It's kind of like the blogs section of Forbes, where it looks like a Forbes article but it's actually just free adspace. (What is the CEO of a startup doing writing blogspam, anyway?) -Jergling (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few users, including myself, have worked on the issues. I think we've cleaned up the weasel words, fixed the quote attribution, and added some encyclopedic perspective. There are still no independent sources, however, and I've been hard-pressed to find one. Jergling (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a growing site and passes GNG based on WP:SIGCOV. There is a lot of sources for this article. I do not own the article. I simply tried to fix the article. I am requesting the article be userfied for about 6 months while notability is better established. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is "lot of sources",

@BlackAmerican: what three specific sources did you find contain the most significant independent coverage of the subject? VQuakr (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are others [1] , [2] even other sites are using it as a course [3] BlackAmerican (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First link if written by a founder. Not independent. Morningnews is a laughably trivial mention. If those are the best two you have found, then I feel quite comfortable concluding that your claim that the article meets GNG is not supportable. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if it makes you feel better. Feel free to check out my other articles created to see if you want to improve or tag for notability. BlackAmerican (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I heard about this site ~8 months ago and I was surprised that it didn't have a Wikipedia article. Mediocre wikis that obsessively rant about Wikipedia tend to be covered here before they break into the top 10k on Alexa. Maybe the audience of a wiki naturally enjoys such drama. The small number of sources is indeed a problem. I found three news sites that have not been mentioned yet, but their references to Everipedia are incredibly brief. All other sources I found are interviews... I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many. Connor Behan (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you failed to find significant independent coverage, you are voting to keep? re: "I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many." Time is money, you know; suckering investors is full-time job. And you want wikipedia help him in this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I might be bias, full disclosure, I work on the site, but I don't see why if RationalWiki and Citizendium have big pages on wikipedia, why everipedia can't have its own page. In terms of alexa ranking and everything, everipedia is similar if not better to these sites, and in terms of media sources it's at least comparable. But again, since I work on the site, the wikipedia community can decide itself if the everipedia page should stay or be deleted. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument in AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :Here are others [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-beall/detecting-emerging-market_b_12095538.html] , [http://www.morningnewsusa.com/meredith-mciver-not-real-2391334.html]    even other sites are using it as a course [http://www.morningnewsusa.com/meredith-mciver-not-real-2391334.html] [[User:BlackAmerican|BlackAmerican]] ([[User talk:BlackAmerican|talk]]) 05:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 ::First link if written by a founder. Not independent. Morningnews is a laughably trivial mention. If those are the best two you have found, then I feel quite comfortable concluding that your claim that the article meets GNG is not supportable. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 06:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+:I guess if it makes you feel better. Feel free to check out my other articles created to see if you want to improve or tag for notability.   [[User:BlackAmerican|BlackAmerican]] ([[User talk:BlackAmerican|talk]]) 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Weak keep'''. I heard about this site ~8 months ago and I was surprised that it didn't have a Wikipedia article. Mediocre wikis that obsessively rant about Wikipedia tend to be covered here before they break into the top 10k on Alexa. Maybe the audience of a wiki naturally enjoys such drama. The small number of sources is indeed a problem. I found [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/yes_meredith_mciver_is_a_real_person_here_s_proof.html three] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/under30network/2016/02/03/5-tips-for-millennials-trying-to-break-the-age-barrier/#670a53ea7ae7 news] [https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/feb/16/kanye-west-twitter-rant-mark-zuckerberg-larry-page-silicon-valley-tech sites] that have not been mentioned yet, but their references to Everipedia are incredibly brief. All other sources I found are interviews... I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 **In other words, you failed to find significant independent coverage, you are voting to keep? re: "I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many." Time is money, you know; suckering investors is full-time job. And you want wikipedia help him in this. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)