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. The consensus is to delete this article. However, I'm going to move it to the incubator so knox387 or anybody else interested can continue to work on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubated at Wikipedia:Article incubator/Bloginity. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloginity[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This was tagged as being csd-able on spam grounds, but I have reservation about deleting it for the fourth time on what have up till now been csd grounds. I feel the article will do better here, if it survives death row then it can be rewritten to address the problems. More importantly, an afd as opposed to a csd will help better gauge the community's sense on whether this should be here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially written as promotional, though in my opinion the present version is not quite spammy enough for speedy deletion. However, there is no evidence of notability. There are thirteen references given in the article at present, but every one of them falls under one or more of the following headings: a page that doesn't even mention Bloginity, a page on the Bloginity website or otherwise published by Bloginity, a page that contains links to reports by Bloginity, but no coverage about Bloginity, a promotional site, an unreliable source (e.g IMDB). My own sources have also failed to produce suitable sources: only bloginity.com, twitter, facebook, wordpress showcase, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply JamesBWatson, your feedback is highly appreciated. There is an interview at this website with the founders of the website, where it is compared to rivaling CNN's showbiz website[*link typed out to avoiud spam filer: www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/how-bloginity-networks-is-becoming-an-online-entertainment-leader/5089] (Knox387 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

According to the main page of filmindustrynetwork.biz, "We are friends with the very popular celebrity showbiz site Bloginity.com.", which means that reference immediately fails WP:RS, as it is not an independent third party source, and also appears on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for clarifying. (Knox387 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi James, FennShysa I wanted to share this link with you in hopes it would change your mind. Today Bloginity.com was named one of the webs best entertainment spots by AllMyFaves.^[1] (Knox387 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete for the same reasons JamesBWatson stated - I couldn't find any significant coverage of the site out there when I nominated it under CSD (it's already been deleted three times now), and the article creator's recent contributions have been nothing but creating articles promoting the site and the site creator Daniel Haim. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRealFennShysa, thanks for your opinion. I responded to your speedy deletion tag several days ago on your Talk page and waited for your reply but did not receive one. The reason my contribution has been only towards this article and a few others is because this is the first page I have created. I am seeking feedback and help from editors like you and JamesBWatson to improve the article. In reference to the article being deleted several times from Wikipedia: in August 2010, the article sounded a bit promotional and was lacking information about the venture. The current page is 100% non-promotional and is there to only provide objective information to users who are interested in learning about the foundation of Bloginity. There has been a great buzz about the company from the reference links which I have included, in addition to television buzz from NBC who acknowledged the website as an online magazine and has interviewed the staff for a story about Bret Michaels[1](Knox387 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

This link (not from NBC, but from a local affiliate - big difference) only mentions the website in passing - it's not a story *about* the website. As to your comment about the article being 100% non-promotional, I guess I'd have to question your math. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response TheRealFennShysa, AZCentral is a source. I would like to apologize in advance but I believe you are very ignorant at this time and do not want this page to exist, you also deleted the entire content several days ago even though it had the hang on tag and a full discussion with another Wikipedia member. The Bloginity page is 100% non-promotional and contains no advertising I just wish you would acknowledge that and help me make the page better so I can learn how to contribute properly to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, looking forward to your reply (Knox387 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

AZCentral makes no mention of Bloginity at the link provided, only links to a local news story that mentions the website in passing - this is a trivial mention, at best; certainly not significant coverage of the website itself. As to your claim that I "deleted the entire content", this is false - I only nominated it under the WP:CSD guidelines - perhaps you didn't notice that another editor also nominated it for deletion the second time, and two different admins did the two separate deletions? Also, please read the guidelines about no personal attacks - comment on the subject, not the people. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies TheRealFennShysa, I did not mean to cause any trouble and I believe you when you say it was not you who deleted the page content, which I apologize for as well for suspecting. That was very unprofessional of me I hope you understand my frustration. (Knox387 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi TheRealFennShysa, how are you? I changed the construction of the Wikipedia page at Bloginity and added several more sources. I was hoping to get your feedback on how it's looking. Once again, I apologize for the trouble earlier.

Delete I have failed to find significant coverage of the company or website from reliable sources. All of the coverage currently referenced in the article seems to only mention it in passing. It therefore fails the general notability guidelines. Jujutacular ^talk 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Juju, I guess I must take it as a good experience and learn. Hopefully I can consult with you all on my upcoming pages. I'm going to research deleted pages and read more comments around. Cheers Real, Juju, & James! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox387 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping Juju. (Knox387 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

~~Uncertain~~ I was asked to come here by User:71.190.254.239. The article is pretty bare-bones, and not promotional, but I am not at all sure about notability. Being listed on Wordpress Showcase is a little less impressive when one looks at the News category & finds also such publications as The Garfield Messenger, the "student-run newspaper at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington." & The MIT Libraries News. To be sure, some of the entries there are from major news publications. The reason given for inclusion is "The site’s developers constantly tweak colors, positions, fonts, and other things to optimize bounce rates and LTV (life tame value) of users" I'd like to see what this article looks like with the citations of where it is used limited to the regular significant ones. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Thanks for commenting. I have combined a few sections, and added a new 'Recognition' section as well as a new 'Research' section. In your free time I would appreciate a feedback.(Knox387 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi DGG, Bloginity has been named one of the Web's Best Entertainment Spots according to AllMyFaves ^[2]

Comment I was also asked to come here by the same user, who is asking everyone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines to help. On reading the article, I'm uncertain about whether it is about the company (per the intro/infobox), website or "online magazine" (per much of the content), so the question is whether the company, the web site or the "online magazine" (we really ought to find a better term or category for these online blog aggregators) is actually notable. As a company of only 15 employees, it probably isn't. As a website or online magazine, it may be if any editor can demonstrate its influence or as a significant reference to other sites, which the article tries to do. So I might have voted "weak keep" but I haven't investigated the references as thoroughly as any of the above. Stephenb (Talk) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephenb, thank you very much for the feedback. I have edited the page as well to add additional sources. I would appreciate your feedback at this time. Kind regards, (Knox387 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi Stephenb, Bloginity has been named one of the Web's Best Entertainment Spots according to AllMyFaves ^[3]

Further procrastinate and relist The article creator is an obvious noob, but now that he's gathered some basic how-to's, I can see that a recognizable effort is being made to improve the article. I would give this some more time and then relist as a brand new AfD. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable argument to userfy. --Pnm (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements to the article and the additional references. (changed from uncertain, above.) Wikipedia is a product of the last generation, which has been educated in the tradition that the sort of things we usually count here as "reliable sources" were the principal form of communication. They still are for some things, but not all. How we will recognize what is reliable in the current spectrum of media is an unsolved problem, not just for us, but for the rest of the world also. The rest of the world seems to be moving towards a view that Wikipedia is the practical sufficiently reliable source, which unfortunately does not help our own problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for changing Wikipedia's notability standards, but is also an implicit recognition that by the present guidelines the article does not qualify. This is not the place to discuss at length the possibility of changing the notability guidelines, but whether a source is reliable is quite independent of the point of view of a generation: a source which anyone can freely edit is not reliable, whichever way you look at it. We do not accept unreliable sources not because we do not think they are not "the principal form of communication" but because we can't rely on them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, that was not my argument. My argument was that it meeds the current standards, based on the additional references provided. I then commented that if we were more realistic it would all the more easily meet them, & wouldn't even have been questioned. When I argue a keep against current guidelines, I will explicitly cite WP:IAR which allows us to make exceptions, and not only the general policy about guidelines but the specific guidelines for notability recognize this. Quite a few articles get kept here on the basis of common sense, and quite a few get deleted likewise. Essentially, that's why we have the discussions DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson and Jujutacular. None of the references qualify as reliable sources. I searched a bit on my own, but the only substantial coverage I could locate was the filmindustrynetwork.biz link discussed above. Though I'd rather new editors invest enthusiasm and learning in articles which meet inclusion guidelines, if the topic is truly on its way to notability (per Knox387's talk page comment about Smashingmagazine.com, which might be a RS), userfy. --Pnm (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2011 (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.