Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glosbe.com


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Glosbe.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No RS, seems like an advertisement to get page traffic and generate revenue via Google AdSense. Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 13:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. If wikipedia is a place for pages like WordReference.com than it definitely should allow articles like Glosbe.com. Glosbe is a project very similar to wiktionary, as such it belongs to society, and having encyclopedic article in Wikipedia helps to build social community. I don't lsee any reason why having or not having Ads on site shall influence your decision. When page is ~10,000 position at Alexa saying, that the reason for this article to exist is to generate a few hundred visits more per month is wrong. But it's up to you. --Barman851010 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that WordReference.com has received significant coverage in many independent, reliable sources, and is therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards. On the other hand, I can find no such independent coverage of Glosbe.com. Accordingly, the article should be deleted. By the way, this is an encyclopedia, not a tool to build "social community".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I get the point. Let me address the latter case: I meant wikipedia as a help of building "social community" in a sense: it is a place for encyclopedic data about a site. Information about site/community placed on site is non encyclopedic, it is, usually, full of marketing. The information about site/community/whatever placed in wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic - independent, short, without marketing, editable to people not necessary being creators of the site. In such a way wikipedia is a help for users, as an independent source of information. It is a help for users, I did not call it a tool for building social community. By "users" I do not only mean online readers, but also people using our API to build their applications and several Universities that published their data through Glosbe. To address the Notability: I didn't put "marketing" data in the article, what maybe was a mistake, as notability seems to be very close to marketing. Glosbe does contain the biggest translation memory available online (I'm sure that Google has bigger one, but it is not available for normal users), especially bigger than Linguee. Glosbe contains the biggest bilingual dictionaries for a lot of languages, to mention some: Avaric-Turkish dictionary, Belarussian-English, Polish-Czech, Polish-Latin and others; it provides biggest Bosnian-other european languages dictionaries. There are the biggest in a sense of number of phrases covered. It is place where Kah language constructors do build their dictionary. What I also consider notable, is that around 200,000 people uses is as an everyday tool. However you are right, I think that you won't find any mention about Glosbe in Times or even The Huffington Post. I don't think I could give any other reason not to delete this page, so please do whatever you think is appropriate. However I'd find it weird if what makes a thing "notable" is whether some "Big Website" mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barman851010 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Barman, please read WP:NOTABILITY. Although as a new editor you may consider it "weird", what makes a topic notable here on Wikipedia is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This is the opposite of "marketing".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, such politics really surprises me. Thank you Cullen for making this clear. AFAIK there is one (not authors linked) article about Glosbe and even one presentation made by an user  (not to mention some links and short articles on a few translators blogs). I assume those are too unimportant to be considered notable. Thank you for your time anyway. --Barman851010 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find anything at all about it from independent reliable sources at Google, Google News or Google Books. It seems to be brand new (the website says it is in beta version ) so maybe it will attract more notice later, but for now, it fails WP:WEB. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2013 (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.