Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine.ca


 * 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 keep. While initially the outcome was clearly to delete, the article has since been expanded to assert notability via the site's content being distributed by a notable independent party. Delete comments say this is advertising, but do not elaborate on their rationales. Once this web site is shown to meet WP:WEB, any advertorial tone in the text can be edited away; "redoing" the article does not require deletion. Resurgent insurgent 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Divine.ca

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB. Listed for AFD after User:Cappy411 removed the speedy tag. Oscarthecat 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

'''This is not a vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia'''; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Canvassing.


 * Delete. Blatant advertising.--Edtropolis 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, advertising.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-Notable. Astrale01talkcontribs 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Divine.ca is a well known site within Canada. It is one of the largest websites in Canada for women.  Site statistics show that divine.ca has over 300,000 unique visitors per month.  In addition, Yahoo! considers divine.ca a partner and syndicates content from divine.ca.  This site is similar to iVillage (a women's website based in the US), but is targeted to Canadian women.
 * For proof of notability, please visit these sites:


 * Divine.ca homepage


 * Yahoo! Partners Page


 * Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411  (talk • contribs).


 * Comment. It's blantant advertising. Wikipedia is not an internet guide or an online shopping wiki where I like buy stuff.--Edtropolis 15:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a laughable, pathetic attempt at proof.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strong delete . I nearly speedily deleted it, but I'll grant that some notability is asserted. It needs backed up with independent sources —and Yahoo is not independent of its own partnership, so it needs other media coverage . —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC); amended 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time understanding why divine.ca would be deleted, when other womens sites such as ivillage.com are allowed to have a page on wikipedia. I would also disagree with the previous comment that Yahoo! is not a media source.  The partnership divine.ca has with Yahoo! is evidence that divine.ca is a legitimate company and a company of note.
 * Other coverage:
 * http://www.gratisbingogames.com/20061008/scratch-win-and-raise-money-for-breast-cancer.php
 * http://www.infopresse.com/guide/GAM.asp?ID=3003&Section=4&SousSection=221&Type=3
 * http://www.divineweather.com/rules.html
 * http://wellness.w3.ihscnet.net/blog/
 * http://www.shania.com/stcares.htm
 * http://www.bra-g.com/news.htm
 * http://www.trind.ca/news/
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cappy411 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That said, iVillage.com does not have an article. iVillage does, but it asserts notability when it says it was purchased by NBC Universal for $600 million. Granted, that's not backed up with a source, but it's at least asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of the links cited above by Cappy411 are primarily covering Divine.ca. The gratisbingogames.com link is the closest, but a) it's a little adrift of reliable, IMHO and b) only identifies that the site has been around since 2005 and is giving 5 cents per some event to a breast cancer charity. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop putting spam on Wikipedia. It violates WP:ADVERT.--Edtropolis 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. To OscarCat: I have told this user not to spam Wikipedia.--Edtropolis 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to Edtropolis - those links aren't spam, they are attempts to make a point. Thus your WP:SPAM warning post on Cappy411's user page was not wholly justified, as that user did not violate Spam here. (Also somewhat violates WP:COI since you're involved in this AFD. -- Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. IMHO (since I'm speaking as an AfD participant here), the links were a good-faith effort to assert notability and not spam. Let's stay on the topic of the article here and save anything else for a talk page (including the AfD's). —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and redo - article is poorly formatted, an orphan and of questionable notability. If users want it, they will make it again. Guroadrunner 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As Edtropolis states, the links are not intended as spam but as a good faith attempt to establish notability. I would contend that iVillage was a notable company prior to it's purchase by NBC, as it was one of the largest sites in the United States targeted to women.  Divine.ca fills a similar role for Canadian women, being one of the only online-only sites (no print component) in Canada that directly targets women.


 * Further coverage includes (this is not spam, but again, an attempt to establish notability):
 * http://www.rethinkbreastcancer.com/partners.html


 * http://www.newszoom.com/search/read/beyonce+knowles/beyonce_knowles/20/02/


 * http://www.leonalewisfansite.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29425&sid=6508744267dd997b63036b58e8ad7e1f


 * http://www.contestqueen.com/resources/inthenews.html


 * http://www.gratisbingogames.com/


 * http://www.tornade-coiffure.com/cours/evenements/media.html


 * http://mlm.business-opportunities.biz/page/4/


 * www.branchez-vous.com/inc/BRANCHEZ-VOUS_MediaKit_October2006_WEB%20Version.pdf


 * http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/body-mind/divine/career_money-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_-want_to_give_to_a_breast_cancer_charity_


 * http://www.incomexchange.com/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.151.96 (talk • contribs).
 * The comment that divine.ca is blatant advertising because the name is a url is unwarranted. Unlike iVillage, the name of the site in question IS divine.ca, not divine.  This is shown in the numerous links referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Thechickpea  (talk • contribs).  — Thechickpea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as a blatant ad of some NN site. meshach 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Redo: After reviewing Wikipedia’s own criteria for submission, it would seem that Divine.ca is being rebuffed only because its own is not properly structured.


 * I would suggest following the example of these similar online magazine entries listed below:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate.com
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Zen_Monkeys
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_magazine


 * Surely the criteria of the notability can be met using accepted research methods, as web metrix would prove or disprove claims sited by either side.


 * Wikipedia’s own argument:
 * “Conversely, very few things are well known everywhere. For instance, Pepe may not be well-known in London, but that does not by itself mean he is not notable.”
 * Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F


 * Divine.ca is well known in Canada as an online webzine for women.


 * I would recommend allowing article to be reworked before any final decision is taken. — 66.131.254.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Delete, Having taken time to visit the links proffered in support of keeping the article, I came away convinced that this is merely blatant self promotion. Further, surely like most folks on this thread, I am familiar with many Internet forums.  A visit to the divine.ca forums shows relatively little interest at all.  Neither the proffered links nor the site's own forums come close to suggesting notability. Oh and I am Canadian and have never head of this site. Pever 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: In my opinion the article page seems to just be stating facts and shouldn't be considered spam or advertising; especially after reading some of the articles posted by other ezines. Oh and I'm a Canadian woman and have been getting divine.ca's newsletter regularly for about a year now. Mnm1108 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Mnm1108 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per WP:WEB. I read the links provided and they were not sufficient proof of notability, either as an online magazine or as a form of Internet marketing. Canuckle 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep : As per Wikipedia guidelines, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid argument when discussing page deletion. As a Canadian site targeted to women, this site cannot be expected to be universally known by everyone in every country and by all Canadians.  Search engine results for "online women magazine Canada" reveal that divine.ca is the 5th site listed.  As these are organic listings, it would stand to reason that the site is known for being an online women's magazine in Canada.  Furthermore, I would disagree with the previous comment that the forums show relatively little interest.  Have you compared the forums of other online women's magazines, or is this opinion based on forums in other fields (such as IT/technology where users are generally more active)?  Let's compare apples to apples.   --Thechickpea 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) — Thechickpea (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep : As per WP:WEB “The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7]” Yahoo distributes divine.ca's content; Yahoo is well known and independent of divine.ca. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)  — 24.201.233.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: Google Canada search for "divine" shows divine.ca as the first organic listing when searched. A Google.com search "divine" shows divine.ca as the ninth organic listing when searched. Clearly this shows evidence that divine.ca is recognized.  --Tinklebottom 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) — Tinklebottom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Upon reconsideration, keep. I finally found a page (http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home) that is Yahoo branded where Divine.ca is listed by Yahoo among "Our partners." Yahoo is well-known, Yahoo is independent of Divine.ca, Yahoo distributes Divine.ca content, and the distribution is non-trivial/non-user-submitted. WP:WEB notability criteria are satisfied, veifiability satisfied with the inclusion of the Yahoo page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep—as per C.Fred's most recent comment. --Paul Erik 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, mets WP:WEB as content is carried by Yahoo. John Vandenberg 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on content being carried by Yahoo. --Thechickpea 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Can only vote once. --Oscarthecat 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.