Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motoroids (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   no consensus. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

This website is a bit of an oddity. A Google news search for its name brings up many many hits on its own website, all related to the Indian automotive industry, and a web search brings up a smattering of maybe reliable news hits that mention the site. As I don't have enough knowledge of the motor industry or India, I think AfD is the best place to discuss what we do with it. An article with this title has been at AfD before, but I can't easily tell if it was the same thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -Subject may meet WEBCRIT #1 (the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..). Here are some sources that substantiate the claim, -,, , , , , , , (There are 97,800 hits in Indian reliable sources).  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with most, if not all of those sources is the "non-trivial" bit. All of them are about the Indian motor industry, and have a brief mention to someone in Motoroids giving a passing mention on the subject in hand. What I could really do with is something that actually talks specifically about Motoroids itself. One of the problems I have with AfD is despite the mantra of "It's not cleanup", its an excellent opportunity to clean up the article, but without some good solid sources that have Motoroids as their main topic, not just as a soundbite, I'd struggle to be able to write anything. - can you help? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, you are looking for sources that are fully centric on subject and seeking to establish GNG. But there is another criteria, particularly for websites, a website may be considered worthy of inclusion per WEBCRIT#1, -if its content has been published by multiple independent, reliable sources. IB Times and Silicon India are reputable reliable sources -who has published contents of Motoroids website,, , , , , , [more]. There are some hits on HighBeam too -, , , , , , [more].
 * I am not sure what can we do with these sources, but subject appears to be satisfying our inclusion criteria. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll dig through IB Times and see what I can do, but to me it's a phyrric victory if this AfD closes as "Keep" but the article still cites little more than itself, Facebook or Alexa, wouldn't you say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * hmm.. I am unsure but you don't seem to be agreeing with NWEB guideline. It is a reasonable query that why would a newspaper, magazine or web portal write about one among them. What is one supposed to receive is 'mention', -about their contents in other reliable media independent of them and that's my core point (like this).
 * If there are presently some sort of unreliable sources used in the existing article, we can fix that in a single edit either by removing them or replacing with a better one. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm exhausted. I've been through about 5-6 pages each of web, news and book searches just to find a source that is specifically about Motoroids, briefly discusses its history, its popularity, and any famous controversies - but I can't find anything beyond articles about other things that say "Motoroid's 'x' says 'y'". The best source I've found is this one and that has one paragraph that says little more than "motoroids is a motoring website and forum". That's it. To me, that fails WP:WEBCRIT, specifically "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content". I'm not trying to be a grumpy old deletionist here; seriously, if you can point me in the direction of a couple of sources that have Motoroids as their main topic, I will happily improve the article myself and withdraw this AfD. But until I find them, that can't happen. Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Last comment, I'm not willing to go farther. If "Motoroids" is published as main topic, it would meet GNG. If their contents have been published as main topic, it would meet WEBCRIT#1 [a policy specially for websites]. I am arguing for latter one (one example.).
 * Here you are asking to delete it because it doesn't meet GNG, I'm to keep it because it does meet NWEB. If we had to determine notability of websites by GNG, we would not have NWEB at first place. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:32, 12 February 2015 (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.