Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I am also not a big fan of renominating an article so soon, but that does not automatically negate the entire process. On the whole, a more compelling, policy-based argument was presented by the delete camp. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

2nd Nom - We gave it a chance, cleaned up the refs and gave fair weight to the issues, but it still fails GNG. The news refs are PR-blog interviews or Crunchbase-style database entries; no one has independently covered or referenced Everipedia itself. All but one of the PR interviews are in the blog sections of their respective sites. As funny as Everipedia is, this article is (at the very least) WP:TOOSOON. Jergling (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Because I know this is going to come up: Yes, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a WP:RS. No, it is not sufficient for GNG in this case, because it's a local interview with the creators which is about the people, not the product. It has the same issue as the other refs, because the Everipedia staff was directly involved in its creation. Jergling (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Second nomination for no good reason. Article passes WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:SIGCOV  This AFD seems to have been opened for WP:POINTy and  opened a few days after it was closed as No Consensus  .  Everipedia 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.   Many reasonable arguments were brought by  ,  ,   ,   , and   ,    BlackAmerican (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't speedy keep. I'll look at this again in more detail later, but I don't see that the nom meets any of the strict SK criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're seriously bidding to speedy keep your own article, and then canvasing a bunch of users who agreed with you for bad reasons last time so they can come filibuster consensus? Everipedia's Twitter account being quoted in an assorted string of tweets at the bottom of an article, or their (unlicensed) image being the first one that comes up in GIS is not notability, it's just spam. I think this needs to be taken up with the admins. Jergling (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and also brought forth some reasonable arguments. It's worth pinging everyone I guess, not a selected few. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Arguments from previous discussion still apply. How about letting a year go by before re-AfD-ing this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The interviews are not that bad. Some of them, especially the DP one, regularly interject with statements made by an editor at the newspaper. And there is no evidence that Mahbod or other Everipedians had any control over what passages would be written in between quotations they provided. I am generally against the practice of nominating an article many times in a row until the crowd of responders changes enough for the outcome to change. Waiting a few months and saying "no new reliable sources surfaced during this time" if that's the case sounds like a better approach. Connor Behan (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Connor, we don't create an article while we wait for sources to appear, that's not how Wikipedia works. We find reliable sources, and then create an article from them. This is textbook PR cruft, it's WP:QUACKing pretty clearly. Jergling (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a different person with my name. But anyway, the sources being slightly more than just interviews was my reason for voting keep. The "let's wait and see if more show up" was only a suggestion for keeping the AfD process civil. Connor Behan (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. All cited is PR puffery, and laughable, too. IMO the previous closure was not based on of analysis of relative weight of arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the 1st AfD had the essence and it ultimately showed this is still not as convincing it would be, especially for substance, and that's of course caused by the fact it's not completely a year old now, therefore it's simply to soon. What was listed as defenses and sources at said past AfD are not actually convincing and are simply attempts to puff the article and mirror differently, something of which can and has been manipulated, and therefore causes troubles. The listed sources and information themselves are then PR-suggestive and that's not surprising, the overall contents suggest enough questionability in that we would be best removing this because there would certainly be troubles aftermath affects from it later, and the claims of speedy keep are entirely unconvincing since an NC is not a basis at all of Keep, since they are contrary, and I would hope it's not simply attempts to keep another nomination from actually analyzing this again, which in that affect is symmetrical with my concerns above. None of this suggests better, and it's quite unlikely anyone can listed any different given what was listed before and, again, the fact it's too soon. SwisterTwister   talk  05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * *Keep The sources provided show that it's notable. The same user started this nomination just five days after the last one closed as no consensus. I suggest waiting at least five months before nominating it again. BigGuy88 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC) indented and struck comment by confirmed sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the Daily Pennsylvanian article was on the front page of the physical newspaper! it was a huge story. Also Everipedia has been in the press in a lot of foreign countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.64.220 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with that the first AFD close appeared to ignore weight of argument, although I guess DR would technically be the venue for that discussion. However, we are where we are, without any sources that are not PR puff, and none that are reliable and independent. The article creator is still citing WP:GOOGLECHECK when it has been explained to him that has no relevance at all to sourcing notability, and WP:SIGCOV without providing any. Again, despite previous explanations that it has no bearing on notability, he continues to list instances of journalists scraping minor factoids or second hand images from Everipedia, which has no relevance to whether GNG is met (it isn't) and amounts to nothing more than lazy journalists scraping an unreliable source from a web search. I truly hope we are better than that.  Selectively canvassing editors who have agreed in the past, as he does here, is also a huge red flag, and impermissible... -- Begoon 07:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was one of the editors canvassed, and I'm glad I was alerted, since I had turned the deletion page off of my watchlist, and I was surprised that it had been re-AfD-ed so fast. So I think the canvassing was justified in this case.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel about it being "justified", it violates WP:CANVASS. I commented in the last AFD too, but the article creator didn't ping me here, because I supported deletion. See the problem? Alerting a biased group is prohibited for that reason - it's an attempt to "stack" the !vote. I'll AGF they didn't realise that - now they do. -- Begoon 13:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe all Afd-voters from the last AfD should also have been pinged, but still, given the context, that the second AfD nominator renominated the article so soon after the first discussion was closed -- effectively nullifying the decision to close-the-discussion -- then pinging makes sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There's another consideration: if Wikipedia deletes an article about a would-be competitor, whose founders actively criticize Wikipedia (including its contributors and culture), it makes Wikipedia look small and afraid to face criticism. And being small is not what Wikipedia is all about. So let's keep this article, and let Everipedia rise and fall on its own shenanigans (the Everipedia site is slathered with ads -- ugh).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "it's a would-be competitor...it makes Wikipedia look small and afraid to face criticism" are not reasons to keep, and do not provide the notability which this article lacks. Sorry if that seems dismissive, but niceties like that don't even enter the equation when notability requirements are not met - and here they are not. Perhaps the GNG may be met in a year or so, but right now it isn't. -- Begoon 13:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These considerations are in addition to the sources, which meet the GNG in my view, and I think that they have a bearing on this discussion. It may be that some of the !delete views are a result of the criticism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I disagree with the nominator's opinion that the DP (or any school newspaper) should be considered reliable in the context of GNG. That point is irrelevant in this case, however, since the DP also fails the "intellectual independence" test in the same guideline: the website was featured in the paper because the founder was a former student. No other sources presented come close to meeting the GNG reliability requirement, and the keep arguments based on "but they are a competitor" or "some news sources have cited them" are both non-starters since they are not based on any policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all I think the opening of a second thread so close to the last one is a sign of disrespect towards fellow editors by Jergling because it does not take into consideration the time and effort that editors put into their responses and editing. I for one am considering looking further into his conduct if I see such behavior again. As for the article, I think it is notable. Jergling misinterprets our guidelines since a blog does not necessarily disquilify it from being notable purely on that ground. Nonetheless, even if that were the case there are other non-blog sources to be found if Jergling attempted to put some effort into finding it instead of putting all the onus on inclusionists. Therefore his nomination rationale at best makes me sense incompetence in him and at worse may need oversight by a mentor if it continues. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Second of all, the opening of the second thread is a mild trout slap to the closing admin who did not properly weigh the arguments. Yes, blog does not automatically disqualify, but most of them are. Third of all, is is disrespect to fellow wikipedians to think they did not try to verify existence of solid sources; where are yours, anyway? Answer: there are none. re: "Putting onus on inclusionists" -yes, this is exactly how wikipedia works: the onus is on those who want some information in. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Loser's puffery. No serious independent appraisal. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company (website) and WP:NCORP needs to be satisfied. I do not see that happening here. None of the sources show any evidence of deep coverage. Please note that per WP:CORPDEPTH The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Please also remember that WP:ORGIND needs to be satisfied - sources need to be independent of the company or its employees. Works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people are not considered independent sources. I do not see any evidence that would enable Everipedia to pass the notability guidelines at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete still TOOSOON.
 * There are currently nine eight sources:
 * breitbart. ok, really?
 * bloomberg profile; ok, the company exists. just a directory listing though
 * Penn student newspaper, writing about Penn alum. hm.
 * Inc article. Ok, not bad.
 * Gust - this is a self-listing at a fundraising website -- SPS, counts for nothing toward GNG.
 * Everipedia's ToU - SPS, counts for nothing toward GNG
 * HuffPo blog, one entrepreneur highlighting another. Meh. Cited twice; there are only eight sources
 * Wikibot article on Everipedia ?  not independent
 * so there is really one decent ref (Inc) and you can maybe count another half for the student newspaper and another half for the huffpo blog. No NYT, no WSJ, no LA Times - no major media at all.  Inc is a least a pretty serious business publication.  Still fails GNG.  Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only coverage I can see in reliable sources are from Breitbart (which is more acceptable as a RS the more non-political the topic is), and The Daily Pennsylvanian, which is a student newspaper. Student newspapers can be used as reliable sources, but generally for uncontroversial claims and shouldn't be one of two RSs being used to establish notability. The Inc. article is in-depth, but I can't find anything about that site's editorial policy. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the existing sources discussed above, with the addition of non-english coverage:
 * that puts it above the notability bar. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * that puts it above the notability bar. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:15, 11 October 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.