Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netvouz


 * 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 per sourcing, and advert-like appearance. Blogs are not reliable sources.'''. 1 != 2 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Netvouz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion or proof or notability. It's written like an ad for the product. Delete TheRingess (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequately sourced; one blog review and one unclear-authority "search engine news" blog are not enough for WP:RS. No relevant results for Netvouz in a Google News archive search.--McGeddon (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy per G11 blatant advert. -- Thin  boy  00  @2, i.e. 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a reference by 3spots, a blog dedicated to the survey of social software. I don't want to go all wp:otherstuff, but compare this list with this list. So, unless one thinks that wikipedia's coverage of social bookmarking should start with delicious and stop with digg...--victor falk 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can convince me that this software has received reviews from multiple independent sources, then I'm willing to change my vote. I'm not concerned with Wikpedia's coverage per se, but I am concerned with issues of notability.  In the article's current state, in my opinion, it does not sufficiently establish the notability of this software.TheRingess (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have independent sources; three of them.--victor falk 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just reread McGeddon's comment above and have to agree with them. Two blog reviews and one search engine news blog aren't enough for me either.TheRingess (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pandia Search Engine News, while not the cannon in this area (that would be www.seo-news.com), is still a respectable source. But the really good sources are the two blogs. A few years one could have considered it ironic debating the appropriateness of blogs as a source for an eminently web 2.0 thing like a social bookmarking site, but it feels utterly stale now. Much as I appreciate McLuhan's "the medium is the message", this is not a correct application of it. Like saying that the dailies but not magazines are ok for satisfying wp:rs and wp:v. Have you perused those two? Do they strike you as the kind of "Dear Diary,..."-blogs intersped with a random "!!OMFG!!!! netvouz iz teh l33t social bookmarking site!!!?!1! ROFLOL!11!!" post? They could as well be named "Humpty's online newsletter on web 2.0 stuff" and "Dumpty's online technical journal for social software". --victor falk 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS is quite clear about blogs - we should be careful about using self-published sources, but they're fine if they're written by recognised authorities in the field (even if they say "OMFG!"). 3spots seems to be a generic, anonymous, well-meaning amateur blog, though, and Susanne Koch of Pandia does not appear to be particularly authoritative. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that Lavoisier and Tycho Brahe were shoddy and inept scientists? Personally, I prefer a reliable and verifiable amateur to an "authority" who says "oh my fucking god" as a source, but that's just my taste. What about Profy for a more "professional" source then? It seems authoritative enough to be used as a source for Twango. Thrice, even. victor falk 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only using the word "amateur" in contrast to the "established expert" that WP:SPS requires. I'm not familiar with Profy's Leslie Poston, but if you can demonstrate that she's recognised as an expert, then that's fine. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (on a side note, wp:sps says that "amateurs" should be treated more carefully when being considered as sources than "established experts", not that they are to be rejected out of hand. I think one should reflect upon the fact that there is absolutely no reason why an amateur could not be an established expert in their field. Unless, of course, you're an Aristotelian)


 * Here you are. --victor falk 20:05, 10 December 2007 (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.