Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBossWatch


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

EBossWatch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable, appears to be an advertisement. Most online references are recycled PRWEB articles. Quantcast and Alexa report no significant traffic. Shritwod (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam and nn. See also Articles for deletion/The eBossWatch Worst Bosses List andy (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. This topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  The existence of press releases is irrelevant in determining whether a topic merits its own article.  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  There are dozens of reliable sources that have covered this topic (as referenced in the article), including Forbes, CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, The Los Angeles Times, St. Petersburg Times, TheStreet.com, The Orange County Register, KGO AM 810, KFBK AM 1530, and numerous additional reliable sources. Abbashele (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (still). Not "clearly notable" at all. Quantcast rank #806,706 ("This site reaches fewer than 2000 U.S. monthly people."), Alexa rank #1,125,912, heck it doesn't even merit enough interest to get its own server. Alexa counts just 59 inbound links, and I think some of those are on other sites operated by EBossWatch. No listing in the ODP or any other directories of note that I can see. No Google News mentions in the past 30 days, in 2009 I can see exactly one article on Google News syndicated many times. So, as far as I can see there are about one million other sites that should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of yours, and I do stress the word *yours* as in WP:COI. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shritwod (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (still). Your statements about Quantcast and other traffic data are not mentioned anywhere in the notability guidelines. Therefore, traffic data and the other points that you mentioned (e.g. last 30 day Google News mentions) are irrelevant to determining notability.  Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state "topic 'has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  This requirement has clearly been met with this article; end of story.

If there are "one million other sites that should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of" the said article, then this points to a lack of Wikipedia resources in maintaining articles about notable topics. My brief experience with Wikipedia leads me to believe that this might be due to the fact that Wikipedians such as yourself are so "trigger happy" to delete new notable and legitimate articles that new potential Wikipedians give up and decide that it's not worth their time researching and preparing their first article only to have it immediately marked for deletion for reasons not mentioned in Wikipedia's guidelines. As a result, additional topics that the author had planned on writing articles about are thus not covered.

Wikipedia notability guidelines do not state that the "level of notability" of articles should be judged against those of other articles (an exercise that would be extremely subjective). Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of your "should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of" argument. I don't see any reason why there should be a certain order that new article submissions should follow. There happen to be several hundred thousand less notable sites that are currently listed in Wikipedia, but this argument is also irrelevant to the notability of new individual articles. To briefly summarize, each article/topic should be judged by itself to see if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which this article clearly meets for reasons that I covered above).

Lastly, your statement "...and I do stress the word *yours* as in WP:COI" seems to contradict the following policies and guidelines set out on the WP:COI page that you mentioned: "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.  Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." Abbashele (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is very simple, you appear to have created an account purely to promote the EBossWatch website and for no other purpose. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for you to promote your website, notability has not been established and I must say that this looks entirely like spam WP:SPAM. Shritwod (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (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.