Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tobixen (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 24 August 2008 (→BeWelcome: - signature on prev comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BeWelcome

editors: Please note this page before posting to keep this on track: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

BeWelcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. The only references so far are 1) an article about several different websites which makes passing mention of this one, and 2) the company's own website. No significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Previously speedied three times for A7 and spam, but I thought this version deserved an AfD review instead. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no company behind the site, it is a non-profit organisation. - Francis Tyers · 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Profit margin doesn't matter. It's still a company. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the way that any organisation is a company ? - Francis Tyers · 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even charitable organizations need to assert notability under WP:CORP. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, I'm not disputing the fact that it is required to comply with WP:CORP, I am disputing your labelling of the organisation behind the site as a "company". Would you describe the Wikimedia Foundation as a company? - Francis Tyers · 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for this discussion; if you concede that it needs to meet WP:CORP, then that's all that's relevant here. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it is required to meet WP:CORP was never in doubt, and never disputed, thus any description of "conceding" is misplaced. This is the place for the discussion as this is the page where the disputed usage is written. If you wish to take it to the talk-page, be my guest. Of course the most simple course of action would be to strike out where it says company above, and replace it with "organisation" (or organization if you prefer). - Francis Tyers · 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American usage of "company" isn't the same as Commonwealth. You may want to look into that. But, again, there's no point arguing semantics: the company fails WP:CORP. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd describe the Wikimedia Foundation as a company? Having lived in the US, I have to admit to have never heard anyone describe a non-profit organisation as a company. Perhaps the usage is non-standard. In any case, I'm glad to have this discussion here to illustrate that the usage above may be mis-interpreted. - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is unnecessary bickering. It fails WP:CORP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.250.188 (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry that it it found unnecessary, but consider the following sentences:
  • The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a company headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States, and organized under the laws of the state of Florida
  • Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international company which defines its mission as "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."
  • The Patriotic Youth League (PYL) is a nationalist youth company in Australia whose members describe themselves as 'radical nationalists'
I would say that in these contexts as in this context, the word company is not appropriate, and even misleading or laughable. In my opinion it is better to avoid misleading uses of words. - Francis Tyers · 11:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences seem fine to me. The point remains you are arguing semantics and ignoring the point raised.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualwik (talk • contribs)
That is a reflection of a very unusual language model of English. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CouchSurfing is also not-for-profit and serves the same purpose but has over 700,000 members ( compared to 4,000 ). This site has less than 1% of that -- closer to 0.5%. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not an argument against deletion, then why is it worth noting? Kafziel Complaint Department 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Context. - Francis Tyers · 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what you're saying is, "I know it doesn't matter that there's other stuff, but... there's other stuff." Does that about sum it up? Kafziel Complaint Department 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've lost me there. - Francis Tyers · 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt away. - Francis Tyers · 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the Argument Clinic? bogdan (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha :D - Francis Tyers · 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was wondering when I asked why this was worth noting. Thus far, Francis, in addition to the normal "keep" comment one would expect from an article's author, you've argued about whether you were right to remove the deletion tag, started a semantic argument about my nomination, and started this thread. If nothing else, I certainly give you credit for your ability to effectively confuse the issue. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fine description of the characterisation of my actions that it appears you subscribe to. Not to say that I find myself in agreement with your run-down, but I prefer to try not to comment on other users' actions in such a way. One might say credit where credit is due, or not. - Francis Tyers · 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're in agreement — although it's almost like the agreement is between two opposing interpretations. Although I suppose stranger things have come to pass... - Francis Tyers · 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't about CS or LGHE. But since you mentioned it, in the guidelines for deletion there is an onus to research yourself if something *could* be supplied. A simple google search reveals CouchSurfing to have hundreds of news articles written about it ( in the past month alone. source google news ) -- not surprising given it's near 700,000 membership base. LGHE is distinctive in a niche market. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fails WP:CORP notability -- the article is a travel blog, not a journalistic piece. 1 mention is hardly notable.
    • Even considering WP:CORP exceptions for non-profits: not notable compared to CouchSurfing which is a not-for-profit, much older, far more prevalent in the news ( 100 articles in the last month alone ), and has a globally useful membership base of 700,000, versus just 4,000 (claimed) here.
    • although claims to be an international organisation it really is only registered in france. 4,000 members for such a concept isn't very useful on a world scale. It's just too small and too new. Hence global organisation exceptions not applicable.
    • WP:SOAP#5 ( from WP:NOT ) this site is not a major organisation associated with the topic. Consider Couch Surfing with near 700,000 members, and Hospitality club with 400,000 members, and their age as well. this is 1-2 years old and has about 0.4% of the combined user base of the two largest organisations. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The site has been listed by La Nación (a national Argentine newspaper) as one of the four most visited sites in hospitality exchange, therefore probably counts as a "major organisation associated with the topic".
not really. There are no statistics to back up the claim, for all we know they just asked a member. The article is also one about Couch Surfing and Hospitality Club. --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site has been mentioned in the top-10 hospitality travel sites in The Guardian, a national newspaper in the United Kingdom.
Mentioned in a travel blog as part of a four month series, by a member, yes. Not very notable. So you think that because it is in the category **that it should be included in the listing? Like a directory within wikipedia? --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
already discussed that it is a travel blog. The point of mainstream news references is to leverage the credibility they provide. A travel blog isn't. *While you can only point to one news article that directly discusses your website, that article itself is just one blog entry in a series of blogs by a traveller on a four month trip. That to me says it is precisely NOT notable.
i don't see that notability has been demonstrated. I think you misunderstand the meaning to be honest. notable: "(adjective) remarkable or worthy of attention or notice". Everything I've seen argued here makes it seem quite unremarkable, when compared with 700,000 members and hundreds of news articles in just one month that Couch Surfing has. --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That it has been mentioned several times in the news makes it newsworthy, which makes it notable (under the definition that is given above for notable). The thing that distinguishes the Guardian coverage from what might be considered to be a travel blog is the fact that the Guardian provides editorial oversight. You could try emailing La Nación, but I think that seeing as they are a reputable newspaper, and we attribute them, this falls within Wikipedia guidelines. - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention is specifically excluded. There is only 1 article specifically about it, but it should be considered that the article is a travel blog spanning 4 months. There are not multiple sources of independent mention. And notability isn't indicated given that in the four months of other blog entries they covered the very notable couchsurfing and hospitality club. For some examples of such sources, check this out: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=couchsurfing.com&btnG=Search+News A travel blog just doesn't match up with a main stream news article. Multiple sources just aren't there. It is not notable.
  • Comment Actually, something has been mistaken, this isn't in the blog section. This is in the general travel section, making it a standard news article. The reporter seems to write both blog posts and standard news articles. The article is part of a travel series. - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no it's a blog. The URL has just changed as noted here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/blog --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is not reflected in the given url, the site is still split between "Travel" and "Travel Blog", of which the given sources are part of the former. - Francis Tyers · 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the content is the same. you are referencing a blog. --Casualwik (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content is not the same as is indicated by the URL and the fact that her non-blog posts are signed with an @guardian.co.uk email address. - Francis Tyers · 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding "content". --Casualwik (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a confusion above between the travel articles in the Guardian and the travel blogs, the two are distinguished in several ways, including but not limited to: The headline of the page "Travel" vs. "Travel blog", the inclusion of "The Guardian" under the author's name in the article, the inclusion of an email address, and the difference in the URL. - Francis Tyers · 13:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again, you are missing the concept of "content". this is getting circular.
  • Keep - Respectable and mainstream media wrote about it, and it was not a "passing mention". One is seldom sure if any website has encyclopedic notability, but I say that if this website (and organization) was reviewed and rated by a mainstream source, it's a keeper. Also, please don't confuse the benefit BeWelcome will gain from inclusion in Wikipedia with its notability. --★čabrilo★ 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable An example of notable, outstanding, remarkable: in the last week: 25,936 real-life introductions 7,828 new members. reference: http://www.couchsurfing.com/mission_stats.html To me that is truly notable, remarkable. Are you seriously comparing this site with less members in 2 years that that site got in the last week as being encyclopedically noteworthy? --Casualwik (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BeWelcome was at least twice mentioned in "journalistic pieces" (not personal blogs) here in Lithuania, in local newspaper "Green Lithuania" ("Žalioji Lietuva", nr. 298, 2008 March (pages 5-6)) and in travel magazine "Keliones ir pramogos" (2008 Nr 02 (91) - online .pdf is not available but one can get a reference from the editor of the magazine). There is no doubt CouchSurfing is so far a much more popular and wide-spread hospitality exchange network but closing doors for BeWelcome which is probably the 3rd or the 4th most known hospex community in the world seems unfair - even though they have less members, comparing CS and BW member numbers by looking at a young BW's 2 years existence and a large CS's one last week is not a good argument in this case since it is just a matter of acceleration: the first two CS existence years were as much "fruitful" as the first 2 BW's ones.--Sigurdas (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but being a member of said organization, I'm probably biased. It seems to me that some people argumenting for the deletion of the article is affilated with "competing" organizations. I'd say the article is well backed up by references, so I don't really see the point of deleting it. BW is still a pretty new organization, software still under heavy development and all that, so I think no matter what the final verdict for this one is (keep or delete), it should be reconsidered at a later stage. tobixen (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome&oldid=233975094"