- 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, due to lack of reliable and non-trivial published sources despite the surprisingly large amount of digging people did. Opabinia regalis 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please see talk page before deciding outcome. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company appears to be non-notable A. B. 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: this article was authored by a company employee. Furthermore, the company has aroused some controversy by virtue of many of its writers adding links to Wikipedia articles in violation of WP:EL. Nevertheless, the critical point as I see it turns on notability -- by our rules as an encyclopedia, if they're notable, they're included regardless of congeniality, ethics, or other POV attributes. See the talk page of the article for more discussion of notability -- several of us did a lot of digging and came up with some a few references, but they're very mrginal at best. I'm bringing the article to deletion not so much as a partisan for its deletion but more to get a broader community look at it and the refs. --A. B. 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to "weak keep" based on Jim Douglas' comment and the NY Times refs he found. --A. B. 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Weak delete per follow-on discussion of NY Times links. What a flip-flopper I've been on this one, especially to have been the nominator. Sorry. --A. B. 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I believe WP:WEB applies here, and this article fails it. The one source that is provided as an example of third-party coverage doesn't strike me as very substantial. Sandstein 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Still a delete for me after seeing the references in the NYT, which amount to some 20 words in total. Utterly trivial coverage, not enough for an article yet. Sandstein 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Weak keep per NYTimes references; Alexa rank of 5,721 seems fairly high. But if the company is trying to create a puff piece here, they may find the article becoming something entirely different. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for digging up the NY Times links, Jim. Several of us dug around pretty thoroughly for evidence of notability and didn't find anything, so you win the search prize. The blogspot link is interesting but doesn't meet WP:EL. At first, I though the Writers Weekly site probably met WP:RS, but I'm not sure it maybe isn't more like a blog -- what do you think? --A. B. 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry if I was unclear! No, I didn't intend for those links to be taken as valid external links; I was just pointing out that there appears to be a significant amount of ill will floating around out there, and the company may regret opening this can of worms. BTW, re: those NYTimes articles; the references to Suite101.com are somewhat incidental, so I'm kind of on the fence. The Alexa rank seems pretty high, though. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak delete. Ok, call me a flip-flopper too. I've been teetering on the fence, and I didn't want this to be just a pile-on, but I tend to agree that two incidental NYTimes references aren't quite enough, particularly after re-reading what the current article says about relaunching in 2006 under new management; I don't see any recent and notable third-party citations. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Suite101 dot com doesn't give me warm-and-fuzzies about the company. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry if I was unclear! No, I didn't intend for those links to be taken as valid external links; I was just pointing out that there appears to be a significant amount of ill will floating around out there, and the company may regret opening this can of worms. BTW, re: those NYTimes articles; the references to Suite101.com are somewhat incidental, so I'm kind of on the fence. The Alexa rank seems pretty high, though. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transform pour encourager les autres as a counterexample and instructive footnote to the history of companies which attempt to use Wikipedia as an outlet for commercial hype (similar to Jim Douglas' initial remarks on weak keep).Athænara ✉ 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. The (please pardon the term) company weasels and their persistent prevarication have altered my earlier (convert article into object lesson) and much less annoyed view. They've been trying to take us for a ride to dump us where we can't find our way back. Enough already. (cf. project talk page.) – Æ. ✉ 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sandstein. I am not partisan regarding the addition of links to S101 in WP articles - that can be dealt with separately. Here we are discussing notability of a website per WP:WEB. A single 4½ year old article (which basically said the company was in decline) in a non-notable email newsletter is a clever find, but does not achieve notability for the company. The information we have is that the company operates under a different business model now and therefore that citation is largely irrelevant on content alone. Regarding the Alexa rank, I wonder if that link wasn't achieved at least in part through spamming Wikipedia. If this company was notable, there'd be a lot more independent reviews and news on them than there seems to be. — Moondyne 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously the present content should not be kept—Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages offering free display ads. I addressed the usefulness, above, of what a very different article recounting this one's journey down the tubes might become. – Æ. 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the original prodder on this one. There is so many unreliable sources out there for this one that it is tough finding substantial reliable sources on this. The New York Times is obviously a reliable source, but the mentions of the site are, at best, in passing. I see a fair amount of blog entries mentioning some of the problems this organization is having, but if this were a notable site, it seems to me that it would be possible to find references to these issues (or even positive ones) in a site we could reference per WP:RS. I'm open to being proven wrong here, but so far I'm not seeing how this article could be more than a stub. ScottW 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the references found in the NY Times only amount to drive by mentions of the site. Not enough for me. -- Whpq 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This is a tough one for me. I actually utilize this website, posted there a few times and read from it alot, particularly from its investing advice sections. From my experience with it, I would say it is a very large in scope, prolific and heavily used website. I'm just a a regular person who has had no connection with this company's management* and who lives in a place far away from the company's headquarters. (*Disclosure:the nice president and I recently discussed this matter on my talk page after I demonstated I was sympathetic to this company.) I know this is antidotal, but it's one of those situations where it seems that it's notable even if if it doesn't strictly fall under WP inclusion guidelines. I really have been looking hard for more conventional reliable sources, found this article from Blog Critics Magazine [1] which is an independent write-up (I just inserted this into the article), but I'm not finding alot more... it has been suggested by the president that print articles exist from sources like The Globe and Mail and The Vancouver Sun but the corresponding web articles have been delted. Sometimes the media simply misses notable things. I might have to employ WP:Pokémon test comparisons with this one and look to sites like ezboard or OhmyNews where similar companies, perhaps lower in scope, have articles. Teetering on WP:IGNORE, these might not be the usual arguments for inclusion, but I feel there should be an exception to the rules in some cases. --Oakshade 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepParticularly in the areas of travel and freelance writing, Suite 101 provides quality content. I say it's a winner, not only for the number of clicks it receives. Similar contribution projects in cyberspace have gone belly-up in the interim.Youtrue 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to edit in very close conjunction with Rough. See comments on talk page.--A. B. 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree that it is bad style to have a company employee write an article for Wikipedia, but somebody else should have done it. Notability cannot be found on the web allone. Rough 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to edit in very close conjunction with Youtrue. See comments on talk page.--A. B. 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When company employees write a Wikipedia article to promote the company which employs them, it is not merely "bad style" but an attempt to corrupt the encyclopedia for the purpose of advertising their company. To Rough, Youtrue, 213.42.21.78, and however many more are in this little promotion crew: you need to read What Wikipedia is not and comprehend it. – Æ. ✉ 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to edit in very close conjunction with Youtrue. See comments on talk page.--A. B. 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this discussion seems not to be about notability but about a employee writing the article. Naem 213.42.21.78 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also appears to edit in conjunction with Rough -- see talk page.--A. B. 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would debate as to whether that is actually the case with this IP, looking at its history. Robdurbar 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also appears to edit in conjunction with Rough -- see talk page.--A. B. 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that site meets WP:WEB. References are outdated/weak. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Im prejudiced çause I got some articles there. 200.106.170.4 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment very borderline this one. A quick search in google news brings up a number of results [2], but a decent percentage are probably discountable due to the fact that they are trivial and/or press releases. Don't know if others would like to comment on these results. --Robdurbar 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through a fair amount of these results. So far, the vast majority of what I can find is self promotion on free sites, pr sites, and blogs. A couple of other editors did the same, and so far very little substantial has come up. Earlier in the discussion, someone noted a mention in the NYTimes, but if you take a look at the article, I think you'll agree that it falls in the trivial category. If this is a notable company/site, there would be at least some degree of non-trivial, independent coverage. I'm open to being convinced to the contrary, but so far, my conclusion is that this coverage doesn't exist. ScottW 12:12, 30 November 2006 (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.