Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article WP:OWNed by a single user who removes maintenance tags after shuffling links around. Every ref is an interview fluff piece and several make rather ridiculous claims (e.g. the INC.com interview: "Everipedia is disrupting Wikipedia.") Author keeps citing Breitbart and Huffpo blogs despite being told repeatedly that these are not reliable sources. Nothing establishes notability because the creator of the website was directly involved in the writing of every ref.

Also contains WP:PROMO (for the site itself as ostensibly better than WP), WP:SYN (for the preceding reason and the links to the Ben Carson vandals), WP:POV for editorializing a joke made by Jimmy Wales, and WP:WEASEL ("it is said to") when referring to unverified claims made by the creator. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete no significant coverage beyond self-promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete the closest thing to a reliable source I can see is this, which doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG threshold alone even if it is found to be reliable and intellectually independent (both of which are doubtful). The behavioral and content issues mentioned in the nomination are not good reasons to delete the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The INC article is by a user who pumps out a different native advertising listicle every 2 to 4 hours. I highly doubt it's an independent source. It's kind of like the blogs section of Forbes, where it looks like a Forbes article but it's actually just free adspace. (What is the CEO of a startup doing writing blogspam, anyway?) -Jergling (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A few users, including myself, have worked on the issues. I think we've cleaned up the weasel words, fixed the quote attribution, and added some encyclopedic perspective. There are still no independent sources, however, and I've been hard-pressed to find one. Jergling (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a growing site and passes GNG based on WP:SIGCOV.  There is a lot of sources for this article. I do not own the article. I simply tried to fix the article.   I am requesting the article be userfied for about 6 months while notability is better established.   BlackAmerican (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * what three specific sources did you find contain the most significant independent coverage of the subject? VQuakr (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are others,     even other sites are using it as a course  BlackAmerican (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First link if written by a founder. Not independent. Morningnews is a laughably trivial mention. If those are the best two you have found, then I feel quite comfortable concluding that your claim that the article meets GNG is not supportable. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess if it makes you feel better. Feel free to check out my other articles created to see if you want to improve or tag for notability.  BlackAmerican (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I heard about this site ~8 months ago and I was surprised that it didn't have a Wikipedia article. Mediocre wikis that obsessively rant about Wikipedia tend to be covered here before they break into the top 10k on Alexa. Maybe the audience of a wiki naturally enjoys such drama. The small number of sources is indeed a problem. I found three news sites that have not been mentioned yet, but their references to Everipedia are incredibly brief. All other sources I found are interviews... I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many. Connor Behan (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, you failed to find significant independent coverage, you are voting to keep? re: "I don't know how Mahbod has time to give so many." Time is money, you know; suckering investors is full-time job. And you want wikipedia help him in this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only been a stickler for independent coverage when it comes to backing up a claim. An interviewee with a conflict of interest doesn't establish veracity but I think he can still establish notability. If the site were truly non-notable, wouldn't all these podcast owners decline or ignore the "please interview me" emails from Mahbod? Connor Behan (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I might be bias, full disclosure, I work on the site, but I don't see why if RationalWiki and Citizendium have big pages on wikipedia, why everipedia can't have its own page. In terms of alexa ranking and everything, everipedia is similar if not better to these sites, and in terms of media sources it's at least comparable. But again, since I work on the site, the wikipedia community can decide itself if the everipedia page should stay or be deleted. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument in AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Lem, actually you're totally right. I didn't know that. Never seen that rule before, I'll admit I'm not very good at the whole notability requirements thing, I never really agreed with it. So do with the page as the community sees fit. GoldenSHK (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment So because of the nature of this business and its similarity to Wikipedia, does keeping it at this time sort of promote it, give it a measure of prestige and credibility, and actually help to make it notable? Could keeping it alter its fate? If so, should Wikipedia be doing that? Is that a reason to delete? Should this be recreated in a year when it gets going? Should this be a consideration? I'm not sure whether this should be a keep or delete. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Anna, that's a pretty philosophical question. Wikipedia won't add to it's growing prestige.  I would say that the site is growing and that is confirmed by Alexa .    I don't think that having a site on wikipedia would grow it more than a search engine, but I believe that deleting the article only shows some of the inclusive behavior that exists on wikipedia.  Deleting the article can take away from possible individuals who would want to edit it in the mean time or individuals who would recreate an even worse version until we all decide that it is finally notable.  BlackAmerican (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Hmmmmm, well, respectuflly, I think Wikipedia would give it prestige. It is a question of how much. Tons of companies want articles for that reason, the same way they are hungry for news media coverage. And saying it wouldn't because it is growing anyway or that search engines grow it more is not a logical argument, to me.


 * Deleting does not show inclusive behaviour and deleting would not be because of any such behaviour.


 * I am just suggesting that we ought to debate whether or not it should be deleted because an article could create notability. It is supposed to be notable already. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing or notability.


 * Finally, your suggesting that deleting it can take away from those who would want to edit it is exactly making my point for me. An article would draw editors toward it, increasing its chance of becoming notable. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting it doesnt make sense. Everipedia has a roughly equal viewership as rationalwiki despite being live for a fraction of the time. With rationalwiki being among the most prominent online encyclopedias online, that is saying something. Even if that wasn't the case, there are still sufficient sources discussion the subject. Also any site that is being seriously discussed as a potential rival to Wikipedia is probably notable. Pwolit iets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not "seriously discussed" anywhere but in promotional babbles. Therefore it is nominated for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Staszek Lem. I'm not seeing any serious discussion. The refs are lousy and I'm don't see anything else out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There seem to be no reliable, independent sources, the only coverage being promotional. 'Keep' votes have so far failed to address this. -- Begoon 23:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What about turning it into (or merging it into) an article on Moghadam? The better sources here are interviews with him and/or about him, and there are a whole lot more articles about him. He certainly meets WP:GNG even if this site is on the fence. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Is being used by a number of sources as a News Source, thus showing its notability. This included Yahoo, CBS Los Angeles , Voices of Detroit , News.com  ,  The Epoch Times  , Slate.com  , CBS San Francisco  , CBS Tampa Bay  and more BlackAmerican (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the article, everipedia has scraped 5,000,000 wikipedia articles, and "has no notability requirements for content and as a result allows users [to] create pages about anyone or anything". I don't think "some lazy journalists use unreliable source to scrape factoids and images" is a claim to notability, unless an RS or two were to document the phenomenon. Seems like a good reason to be more careful if we rely on those sources which you've demonstrated doing it, though... -- Begoon 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * irrelevant; GNG doesn't say anything about being used by news sources. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is subjective it already passed the WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:SIGCOV. BlackAmerican (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is the opposite of subjective: "GNG doesn't say anything about being used by news sources" is a verifiable statement of fact. WP:SIGCOV is the same section of the same guideline as GNG; the two are synonyms. You have asserted the article meets GNG without providing any support for the assertion. WP:GOOGLECHECK is a how-to guide that is not germane to a discussion about deletion. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete fails basic GNG - there are not sufficient independent sources about everpedia yet. Probably just WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot view the Bloomberg ref because I'm in China where that site is blocked. So, from what I can view, I am not seeing what is needed to support this article -- not even close. This fails GNG and in particular the general notability guidelines for organizations. Maybe in a year they will have the media coverage, but it doesn't seem to exist now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Powiets and sources like ones above and this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources? The one you linked is a student newspaper. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article was written by Elaine Lee, an undergraduate student at University of Pennsylvania. Oh, and she has an article at Everipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Daily Pennsylvanian is a viable source (it has its own article in Wikipedia) which has won many awards; is there anything in their article on Everipedia that you think is untrue? Another source in-depth and in-depth and in-depth. Yes, sources are a bit raunchy but such is life in the twenty tens. Magazines like Slate have used Everipedia photos. For us at Wikipedia, to not have an article on what is clearly a challenger-type encyclopedia, makes it look like we're afraid of competition. We're not. At least I'm not. Everipedia copy-and-pasted my History of citizenship article so at least they're copying the best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the DP from my time at Penn. I stand by my statement that it is not sufficient to establish notability per GNG. I'd have trouble being convinced that any college paper could be used for GNG evaluation in any context, but in this case the personal connection of the website's founder to the college means that source also fails the "intellectual independence" test. Breitbart and the other advertising was already addressed above. We are evaluating this article using the same criteria we use to evaluate notability for all subjects - whether it is a "challenger-type encyclopedia" is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My question stands: what, if anything, in the DP article about Everipedia do you feel is untrue? See, the article rings right. In my view, the DP is a quality publication with a reputation to uphold (Penn's, the students, etc), many of its writers go further in journalism and become notable such as Benjamin Ginsberg and Stephen Glass. The supposed "connection" between the founder and the college is unlikely to cause distortion or misrepresentation. Generally, college papers from top colleges, Ivies, and big state universities are excellent sources; (colleges from smaller Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools may not be.) The Daily Pennsylvanian has been cited numerous times in Wikipedia such as here and here and here. Regarding sources, if Breitbart won't float your boat, there are others such as here and here and elsewhere. Plus, there's also this factor -- Everipedia claims to be a competitor to Wikipedia, a challenger -- in that sense, established Wikipedians (myself included) have an inbuilt bias to not report it, to claim it is not notable, etc -- but that seems like a conflict of interest, as if our own egos as Wikipedians are spurring us to delete this article out of jealousy or bias -- that is, we need to be broadminded here and welcome competition, even upstarts that criticize our project -- and let Everipedia succeed or fail on its own merits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - GNG pass, but be careful about this article being controlled for promotional use. I removed a flagrantly wrong exaggeration of Alexa rank that through their own misstatement had been echoed into the media. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (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.