Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of tutoring websites


 * 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. quoting Tokyogirl79: "I highly encourage that you post this somewhere, just not on Wikipedia." Shii (tock) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of tutoring websites

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prodded with: "article is completely original research. A collection of links." Wikipedia is not a directory. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nominator. Consists only of OR.  Del ♉ sion  23  (talk)  18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 The article is no "original research", it is a "survey". In fact I have analysed existing tutoring sites, extracted meaningful information from them and presented them in grids for easy comparison. The links to the tutoring sites represent only less than 5% of the information provided by the article and should be seen as references so that anybody can verify the correctness of the information presented in the comparison grids In Wikipedia there are many similar articles where entities such as IT or communication products are compared. Here a few examples:  Comparison of wiki software Comparison of web browsers Comparison of reference management software Comparison of e-book readers Comparison of e-book formats Comparison of platform virtual machines           Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I, author of the article, object the proposal for deletion for the following reasons:


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and we probably ought to delete these other pages as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have checked WP:NOTDIRECTORY and in my opinion it confirms that the article cannot be considered a directory. In fact it provides an analysis and comparison of features of a number of entities (tutoring websites), not just a list of entities as a directory would do. It outlines the main distinguishing features between tutoring websites and their implications. It is very informative for whoever is interested in tutoring as it shows different approaches in tutoring services. There is an analitical work in the article, it is not just a list of things. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: This page is a directory and original research. It is a directory because it links to external sites rather than Wikipedia articles, and is not constrained to notable websites (those that have a Wikipedia article). It is original research because it has a definite lack of sourcing. OSbornarfcontribs. 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unlike the others listed for comparison, which contain numerous wikilinks, this one fails WP:NOTLINK. Also it would have to be permanently tagged as outdated.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is all OR and pretty subjective. It also appears that whomever created the list is also one of the companies listed here, so there's some huge conflict of interest and advertisement no-nos going on here. S/he pretty openly states that they "have found the sites with the help of search engines and discarded those which were not clear about their functioning", which could mean that they deleted competition. It could also mean that they are judging the competition they  did list unfairly in order to promote their own company. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * To (User:Bcancel, please look up WP:COI. Starting an article where you have a vested interest can be seen by many as a conflict of interest because you potentially stand to gain from people going to your site or by you potentially downplaying or removing people that you view as "inferior" to the product you put out or anyone that would be seen as competition. It's possible to do this even when you go into the article with the intent to not do this. It's not against "the rules" for someone like you to edit/create an article, but it's generally not a good idea unless you've talked to a lot of people on the wiki first to ensure that you're creating a neutral article as well as one that warrants being on here to begin with. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * I have explicitly declared the conflict of interest in the article's introduction and still think the article is absolutely neutral. By applying the Wikipedia rules too restrictively, you will be removing an article which is very informative for whomever is interested in tutoring services. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The neutrality will be an issue since you have an interest and could stand to profit if someone happens to select your company from this list, whichever company it might be. It will always be an issue when someone edits or creates an article where they mention their product or company. It doesn't always mean that they're not neutral but it means that it always should be investigated to ensure this and because of that we can't only accept your say-so. Besides, this article is not wikipedia-worthy. Please visit the page WP:NOT to see what Wikipedia is not meant for. There is nothing here on this article that merits an entry here. Just because it might be helpful to people looking for something specific does not guarantee that it is notable or merits an entry. In particular you should look up WP:NOTDIR that others have tried to get you to visit. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of services. That is not and has never been its function or intention. As much as you try to deny that this is not a directory, that is essentially what this entry is. You can try to justify it any way that you like but the article's main purpose is to list tutoring sites. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment – It would also be a good idea to visit WP:OWN. The article is not written like an encyclopedia entry. It is written like a commisioned report. "By Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website we mean", "I am a co-founder of one of the tutoring websites". When do you ever see articles on Wikipedia refering to "I" or "We"? Just because it is useful does not make it encyclopedic: see WP:USEFUL. If it is useful why not make a blog or a website for it? It'd get more hits on Google than on Wikipedia.  Del ♉ sion  23  (talk)  16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

<ul><ul> <li>I have changed "By Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website we mean" into "A Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website is ..." <li>I have suppressed the declaration of conflict of interest in the article's introduction ("I am a co-founder of one of the tutoring websites included in the survey. I declare that I have used objective, impartial and fair criteria in the selection of the sites, in the order they are listed and in their analysis. I have found the sites with the help of search engines and discarded those which were not clear about their functioning. I have ordered the sites by the number of tutors declared. The sites which did not give any indication about the number of tutors registered or employed have been ordered randomly.") </ul></ul>         I believe the style is now appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have improved the article according to the preceding comment:


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Neutralitytalk 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have created the article after seeing many other "comparison" articles in Wikipedia (I have given a few examples above). Now, for the sake of justice and consistency, if you want to delete my article, please delete the other ones first. Bruno1949 (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that you wrote a comparison article. The problems with the article are described at these pages: WP:COI, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:OR. Please read some of those pages, they will explain to you the concerns editors have with this page. OSbornarfcontribs. 13:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt: Completely unencyclopedic linkfarm and directory based entirely on OR with personal subjective and self-serving evaluations by the compiler not based on any reliable sourcing and tainted by obvious COI for purely selfish personal promotion and financial gain. A gross and reprehensible abuse of the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Comparison of notable tutoring websites could be a viable article. This is simply a spamy linkfarm dressed up as an article. - Whpq (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could Whpq please explain what is a notable tutoring website and provide a few examples. Anyway I reject his insult of having built a "spamy linkfarm". I have had no contact whatsoever with any of the surveyed sites, except of course the one I have cofounded. And I am convinced that my article is very useful to anyone interested in web-aided tutoring. I wish I had found a similar article before I started developing my tutoring site. Bruno1949 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Notable. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply not accepted - please read my question better. I know what "notable" means in general, I would like to know why you believe the web sites I surveyed are not notable and a few examples of tutoring websites that you consider "notable". Thanks. Bruno1949 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The link I provided to the Wikipedia guildeline was to provide you with information to understand what the term "notable" means in the context of this discussion as opposed to the more general dictionary definition. The web sites in question do not appear to meet the criteria for "notable" as outlined in the guidelines.  I did not exhaustively go through every web site listed, but a spot check revealed no significant coverage about them.  A comparison of tutoring web sites where each of the compared web sites has their own standalone wikipedia article might be viable as a topic.  If you are offended by my characterisation of the article as being spammy, then I withdraw the comment about it being spammy.  But it is staill a linkfarm. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About the term "linkfarm", they are normally paid by or exchange links with the interested websites which is not my case and therefore I also find it offensive. As regards notability, here we have a big inconsistency. For example, how come there are articles in Wikipedia dedicated to tutoring companies such as TutorVista, Tutor.com,Transweb and maybe other who are clearly adverstising their services. Now, I think my article, which includes them, is more correct (from a Wikipedia point of view) and useful (from a user point of view) of their dedicated articles. So, if you want to delete my article you should also delete theirs. Bruno1949 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing these to our attention. We'll start tagging them to see if they deserve to be kept on wikipedia or not. So far my google search doesn't bring anything up to show that most of the names you've listed merit an article here on wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete per the above. The correct course here would be to make a list of notable tutoring websites - that is, websites for which we already have an article (with the appropriate sources, etc). Then, a list of such websites could be appropriate. But this article, in its present form, doesn't work. The links don't support on-wiki content, as they should per WP:EL; rather, the links are the content, which doesn't work. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, all you reviewers seem to be focused only on the links present in my article, whereas the most important thing here is the analysis of the main differences between tutoring websites. Please be more pragmatic and ask yourselves whether the information provided by the article is useful to people who want to understand in theory and with practical, real examples what the tutoring websites do and how to choose the one that best fits ones needs. Bruno1949 (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please understand that just because something is useful does not mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. A comparison of these sites might be useful but it is still not something that belongs here on Wikipedia. This is something that more belongs on a personal private site. As much as you think that your article deserves to be here, it just doesn't fit what is considered to be an encyclopedic entry as far as this site goes. Saying that it deserves to be here because it's useful to people doesn't warrant an article. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * That said, I highly encourage that you post this somewhere, just not on Wikipedia. There are many free blogging websites through which you can post this list. It doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.