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 closed as keep per WP:SNOWBALL. More cites have been added to the article and, whether those cites are valid or not, the discussion here has been so derailed as to be absolutely useless. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BeWelcome[edit]

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]
Please, don't vote twice (twice writing in bold DELETE) as you did above (I have changed it to COMMENT ON notable). We have already heard your vote clearly - let other people speak. --Sigurdas (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is, instead of providing a counter-argument to lack of notability, could I just not raise the point? --Casualwik (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually no need to provide some sort of contra-argument since I agree with a bunch of other users who have expressed their opinions on this page that there is no much lack of notability. I think you should stop comparing BW to CouchSurfing - everybody understands that a latter is much bigger and more important - however, it is like with Internet Explorer being a leader among internet browsers: 73.81% world internet users prefer it to other browsers, but Wikipedia still covers the usage and development of much smaller browsers (Opera - 0.71%, Netscape - 0.62%...) --Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, did you really just compare yourself to company that makes Opera Browser? Lets look at that comparison objectively shall we? http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=opera+browser&btnG=Search Shows 600 news references this month alone for "opera browser". This is just getting silly. This site does not have that notability. The fact is this site is very new, has a very small user base, very slow growth, hasn't proved notability, and doesn't stand out from the dozens of other sites. --Casualwik (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had an intention only to show you that comparing the hospex networks' users % to each other is not vital here although it seems like for you (and only for you) it is a crucial point in this discussion (that CS and HC together have 90% of world hospex users, and BW is somewhat 0,1%). And please stop being so aggressive and referring to me as BW owner or something - I am not one.--Sigurdas (talk)
You think it isn't, I think it is. Notability, remarkableness is certainly tied to awareness in the market. At the end of the day it certainly comes down to relative size. And don't forget there are dozens of other websites which are not listed... many in a similar young state to this website. Again ( and nobody has answered this even though I've posed it a few times ), are you suggesting we list all the sites like some kind of hospex directory? And while there are a few voices here that certainly support you, lets be objective about that: most are volunteers for this website... if only wikipedia had some kind of guidelines about calling in friends for support. --Casualwik (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be an accusation ? I realise that the alternative account rules are being followed, but might it be a good idea to outline all biases, as opposed to only those from BeWelcome, after all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist... Disclaimer: I am a member of HospitalityClub, CouchSurfing and BeWelcome, and you could consider me a volunteer for all three. - Francis Tyers · 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well that explains your assumptions that this new site is more popular than it actually is. What do you mean "could consider"... as i see it, you are either acknowledged by the group as a volunteer or you are not. And while i'm here, and since it has been ignored yet again, do you think we should be listing every site between the most popular all the way through the dozens of other older sites until we get to this one? Like a listing of hospexes. If not, why do you think yours should be noted ahead of all the older ones and larger ones? --Casualwik (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any assumptions, the article cites several articles published in national media. If people want to know the extent of my involvement on either of the sites, they have but to look, as I understand it, access will not be a problem, although it leaves one wondering whether a person so enamoured with one organisation would have accounts on the alternatives? - Francis Tyers · 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a bias which is clear. So you aren't actually a volunteer for all three sites? You just "could be considered one" ? And it doesn't leave much to wonder... you need to have accounts on the large sites because that's where the user base and activity is. The smaller sites just aren't active, like this new one. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content. It takes more than a passing mention in a travel blog to be notable enough to get recorded. So you still haven't answered... do you think wikipedia should list all the other hospex sites that are bigger than this new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualwik (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As outlined above, now in bold type for viewing ease: If people want to know the extent of my involvement on either of the sites, they have but to look, as I understand it, access will not be a problem, although it leaves one wondering whether a person so enamoured with one organisation would have accounts on the alternatives? — while the identities of all of the contributors to this discussion might be clear to myself at the least, one would suppose that a cursory glimpse through the various fora would provide the desired answer. To those wanting a more structured outline of my goings-on with respect to volunteer activities for these organisations, contacting me is possible through my accounts there.
Persisting in labelling news articles as "blog posts" is not an effective argument for deletion. There are four news articles with non-trivial mentions (including one with two-page a treatment) of this organisation. - Francis Tyers · 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.
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.
Interesting, could you put some summaries of what the articles say on the talk page of BeWelcome and I'll (or you can) work them into the article. - Francis Tyers · 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Lets have a look. CouchSurfing, HospitalityClub, Servas, GlobalFreeloaders, Stay4Free, WWOOF, BootsNAll ( around since 2000 ), Place2Stay, PasportaServo, Traveler-Exchange, Meeturplanet, GlobalHospitalityExchange. The list goes on. While YOU might think it is the 3rd of 4th most known network ( you volunteer for it right? ), it's clearly not a majority thought or the membership would be higher. The list of new hospex sites is very very long. For one as new and small in membership as yours to be listed we would need to go back and list many that came before and are far more established and with greater membership bases. In doing so wikipedia suddenly becomes a business directory listing instead of being encyclopedic. --Casualwik (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have a closer look, you might notice that most of the networks you have named are either very small, or they are not very active and seem already abandoned for ages, or they are not classified as hospex at all (for example, WWOOF??).--Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
erm, most of those sites are bigger than this new one. Are you seriously saying they aren't important because they are small, but yours that is smaller is important?--Casualwik
First of all, so far I see no proof that most of those sites are bigger, and even if some of them are, the difference in members is very fragile: after giants HC and CS, it is hard to distinguish any clear leaders. Second of all, BeWelcome is not mine - I am neither a creator nor a very active volunteer. I just think it should be on Wikipedia, and I am sure it will be, if not now then within 1-2 years.--Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GlobalFreeloaders has over 50,000 users. That isn't a fragile difference. But the deeper point was that the list is very long, and for you to claim 3rd or 4th is very misleading -- verging on fabrication. So if you accept that the list is big and that you are not 3rd or 4th on it but rather muddled somewhere along the lines, why is this site notable enough to be listed ahead of all the others? Or do you propose all of those sites get listed, like a directory? as for 1-2 years time, well that is not now. --Casualwik (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GlobalFreeLoaders does have significantly more members then BW, but first of all, its [networks's] development and member's growth has somewhat stopped or very little improved in the last 1-2 year(s), and second, most of it's members are located in U.S. and in Australia which makes this network almost English speaking country only -oriented. BeWelcome in that sense is much more multicultural, and the site in addition is the only multilingual network of this kind. Even though if it is not the 3rd or the 4th hospex network by its importance, it is obviously not far away, and considering its stable growth and constant improvement it should be on Wikipedia if not now then very soon. In fact, Pasporta Servo with only 1320 members is already on Wikipedia! --Sigurdas (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bewelcome is not the only multilingual network. CouchSurfing and Hospitality Club are both translated into numerous languages. Even visiting their homepages confirms this. I'm not speaking for the others as that isn't necessary to refute your obviously incorrect claim. As for Pasporta Servo, it is a site specifically aimed towards esperanto speakers and has a very different market to CS and HC, so of course the membership base is different. Apples and Oranges and all that. --Casualwik (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multilinguality is more valid for BW than for HC or CS: if you get a closer look at HC, you will see that most of the multilinguality covers the index page and usually but not always the FAQ, with the rest of the pages being in English/German only; CS is doing a bit better, but hey, a network can't call itself a multilingual just by listing, for example, a Chinese language in a language drop-down menu without the pages actually being translated to Chinese! As for the argument regarding Pasporta Servo and its very different market, well, one can say that BW actually has a pretty different market then, too: unlike CS or HC, from the very beginning it was meant to have a democratic approach, financial transparency, and to be open source. So, do we really need to divide hospex networks to even smaller subgroups to see which of them is valid for the criteria to be on WP, or should we just tag them HOSPEX and value them by their popularity and importance in hospitality exchange world? --Sigurdas (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are confusing market with organisational structure. Doesn't BW claim to have multilingual profiles, but yet many profiles only show up in one language? I think you are starting to get down to fairly trivial differences. --Casualwik (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's offensive. Please present arguments instead of personal attacks. Couchsurfing: 700,000 members. #1 hospitality exchange website. Hundreds of news articles written about it each month. More new members in the last week than this site has gotten in the last year. 25,000 meetings recorded in the last month. This isn't a matter of affiliation. It is merely a matter of two things: a) over-representation of a small site compared to dozens of others which are older and with similar or larger membership bases. b) keeping wikipedia encyclopedic, and not just becoming a directory of websites. ( it is understandable that the free advertising is appealing to a small website, but that comes at a cost to the validity of the others ) --Casualwik (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could the part that is offensive be outlined that it might be removed? - Francis Tyers · 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have probably missed my comment above... Anyway, is this page for arguing how much CS is bigger than BW, or is it meant to count the votes of active Wikipedia users regarding the fate of the article? --Sigurdas (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote, but rather a structured discussion. - Francis Tyers · 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think notability or being remarkable is relative to anything else? --Casualwik (talk) 00:59, 25 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.
More