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. Consensus was that there is insufficient coverage from Reliable Sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blogs and forums are not Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblopnik[edit]

Autoblopnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this website. Google returns 83 hits, none of them independent with substantial coverage. The ones I thought might have coverage all turned out to be social media discussions. I speedied this a week ago when it was created. It was deleted, but then restored with a reprieve based on representations that the article would be improved to show notability. It isn't been. Then I PRODded it. Someone removed the PROD tag, while assuring me on my talk page that the site is notable, and leaving an edit summary saying he was going to add info showing as much, but all that's been added so far is a claim to that effect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote to Largo:

Looking at the Wikpiedpia guidelines for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability... The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability... The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...."

I believe Autoblopnik.com meets these requirements. It has received coverage in several independent sources, including major car sites such as Jalopik, GM Authority, Autobytel, and MichiganRadio.org; major automotive forums including Bimmerpost, Allpar, VW Vortex, Jeepforum, and Tesla Motors Club; and numerous (though less significant) blogs and forums. It has been cited by Jack Baruth, editor of TTAC and contributor to Motor Trend and references to the site show up in comments posted to Autoblog, Jalopnik, and The Truth About Cars. And all of this is in addition to the social media discussions you cite (assuming you're talking about Gawker Media's Oppositelock, where the site is promoted by the owner and talked about by other readers).

Therefore, I believe the site meets the Wikipedia requirements for notability: It has received significant independent coverage and recognition in reliable sources independent of itself, and there is verifiable, objective evidence to support that. Though the citations in the article may not properly reflect this, the guidelines are clear that "poor... referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability," therefore instant improvements to the article should not be necessary. Rather, the article should be given time to be found by other Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject so they may continue to improve and evolve it.

Based on all that, I respectfully submit that the proposal of deletion should be removed. I believe I am allowed to do this myself, I'll wait a little while for discussion (assuming no one beats me to it).

Thanks for taking the time to read. Gearhead4847 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed your comments above. It's ironic that you're thanking people for taking the time to read what you've written, while not having the courtesy yourself to read what's already been written in response, at least not enough to understand that the arguments you're repeating here have already been dispensed with.
I took your analysis into account in my introduction to this discussion. "Someone removed the PROD tag, while assuring me on my talk page that the site is notable, and leaving an edit summary saying he was going to add info showing as much, but all that's been added so far is a claim to that effect." On your talk page where you previously posted the above, I replied to you that forums aren't reliable sources. I also told you that "My proposal wasn't based on poor referencing within the article: as I said, I did my own research." I also drew your attention to WP:CRYSTAL, about how Wikipedia doesn't carry articles in anticipation of the subject's future attainment of notability.
By the way, you ought to have removed the sentence beginning "Based on all that", because it applied only to the proposed deletion that you were originally responding to. You aren't allowed to cancel a deletion discussion yourself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy there, Largo, I read your reply, I simply pasted it over here since this is where the discussion is taking place. I'm aware that I can't cancel the deletion.
Regarding forums: I agree that a forum is not necessarily a reliable source for information. But would discussion on forums not indicate that a subject is notable? We're talking about a site with a specific area of focus (cars). Are we not looking to see that the subject has garnered attention? Gearhead4847 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gearhead4847: In the event you're not aware of it, check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which provides an exceptional overview about the reliability of various sources and the use of sources for Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry you thought it was a claim, Largo. I get what you're saying, though--Wiki needs more solid evidence than "I'm in this industry and we laugh at this guy's stuff." Here's some of the third-party sites that have covered/linked to/discuss Autoblopnik's stuff outside of forums that should satisfy what Wiki wants to see regarding outside coverage: http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-tire-blowout-causes-media-frenzy/ http://jalopnik.com/car-satire-site-autoblopnik-just-rehashed-a-press-relea-464854032 http://buildraceparty.com/found-on-the-web-autoblopnik/ http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/09/autoblopnik-satirically-explains-slow-cadillac-sales/ Plus an Autoblopnik syndication on Autobytel: http://www.autobytel.com/car-buying-guides/features/autoblopnik-s-guide-to-green-cars-120061/ And here's the big incident where The Economist accidentally took them as truth: http://jalopnik.com/the-economist-accidentally-plagiarizes-from-parody-car-815742777 http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/07/diesels (see note at bottom where they admit to getting fooled)

There's no need to be rude to the other guy arguing that it's notable, IMHO. It looks like he is trying to wrap his head around Wikipedia's rules, and he's not only mentioning forums in his response. The non-forum sites he mentioned are fairly decent/reliable automotive-related sources that I'd feel okay about linking back to in any other work.

Admittedly, Autoblopnik writes about and to a smaller industry that non-car-people tend to shun, but within the industry, it gets decent press. I'm not as familiar with how to cite this for Wikipedia's rules, so I'll leave it be, I guess. I will say that the site is notable enough for a page, though. 66.90.154.65 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking issue with his arguing that the site is notable. My focus was on the disregard he was showing for all of you when he reposted his arguments without indicating that many of them had already been responded to, possibly covering ground that you would wind up spending your time, effort, and thought into covering from scratch if you didn't know someone else had done so already. It would have been different if he'd said that he'd already received some answers, but wanted to follow up on those. His omission of that detail amounted to WP:FORUMSHOPping. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nom: you may wish to look at the contribution history of the IP Special:Contributions/66.90.154.65 LaMona (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No disregard intended, Largo, this is the first time I've participated in a discussion like this, so I assumed it was best a) to get everything in one spot and b) to repost exactly rather than change my story on the fly. I'm a journalist, so that's the way it struck me to do things (and I figured others would copy in their own conversations if need be). So if I took a mis-step, I apologize, it certainly wasn't intentional. (I'm new around these parts.) Gearhead4847 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: Sniff Petrol referred to Autoblopnik as "Sniff's American Cousin" (though it was on social media). Perhaps there is a connection. I added that tidbit to the article. https://twitter.com/sniffpetrol/status/608331694324764672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearhead4847 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 June 2015 (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.
More