Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RateItAll


 * 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 Keep per article's improvement, reliable sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RateItAll

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

'''Nom-Withdrawn based on establishment of two non-controverisal reliable sources. however articles still needs serious clean-up.''' Fails WP:WEB. A grand total of 37 google hits. The links consist of 3 links to the site itself, 1 link off a page, 12 blogs, 6 press release reprints, 6 website directories, 2 photo sites, 1 forum and a myspace page. There are a couple of hits which go nowhere to sites which say things like "we have nothing on rateitall" or the link is dead. The only coverage from a reliable source is PCMag, before we even get into the quality of it, WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial coverage, and at best there is a single item of coverage. Given the nature of that coverage though, its borderline trivial as its solely a description of the content on the site. Even with the triviality of that coverage in question, its not enough to establish notability. Also there may be some conflict of interest on the part of the main editor as evidenced by this statement .Crossmr 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: absolute advertisement, all the sources come from its own website, violates WP:RS and WP:NOT. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM, but it's too well disguised to qualify for g11. YechielMan 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The "37 Google Hits" is grossly inaccurate.  You have to search like this "rateitall" not like this "RateItAll."  Depending on what Google data center you hit, you'll find 600,000 to 1,000,000 hits.  Same thing on Yahoo!.  There is also a video clip of an ABC News (national) piece on RateItAll on the "Talk" page.  Compete.com places RateItAll in the top 6,000 sites on the web (in terms of traffic), and Alexa places it in the top 25,000 Web sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually I proposed its deleted based on its failure to meet WP:WEB. I went through the google hits that were returned simply to nip it in the bud and show that what little search traffic that was returned on the site didn't go anywhere towards establishing the notability of it. It was a bunch of blog postings and a few internet directories.--Crossmr 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, here are the relevant links:

ABC News Clip http://www.rateitall.com/pressreleases/interview_56K_Dial_Up.mov

Full PC Magazine Feature ( I don't think Crossmr clicked through to the whole feature, it's pretty comprehensive) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2066713,00.asp

Compete http://snapshot.compete.com/rateitall.com

Alexa http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=rateitall&url=http://www.rateitall.com/about.aspx

Google Search Results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-45%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=rateitall&btnG=Search

Yahoo Search Results http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=rateitall&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

John Battelle Claim that RateItAll was first with rev sharing: http://battellemedia.com/archives/002603.php

John Battelle Wikipedia Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battelle

Here is a link to a company post which implored RateItAll users to be respectful and abide by the TOS: http://rateitall.blogspot.com/2007/02/wikipedia-entry-for-rateitall.html

I am a big fan of Wikipedia, and I admire the dilligence with which you manage the property. However, it is important that the case for inclusion be judged on the facts. Several of RateItAll's members put in a great deal of work digging up facts and writing this article, and it will upset me to see their work erased so nonchalently based on things like "37 Google Hits." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hundreds of thousands of Ghits and more than enough mentions in many places as shown above.--Dacium 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not hundreds of thousands of ghits, there are only 44 unique hits using that search . Most of which I bet are indetical to the results in the search I provided.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is just not true, and I don't understand why you keep saying this. RateItAll averages about 45 new, unique mentions per week... and we've been around for seven years.  All you need to do to confirm this is to do a search for - rateitall - (no quotes, no anything), and scroll by hand through the hundreds of results pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrencecoburn (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per google and the Alexa ranking. While not as famous as epinions, it does get close to a million visitors per month.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither google (which I've shown above is a drastically inflated number) nor alexa ranking is valid anymore for establishing notability.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sez you. Of course they do.  What do you propose instead?  If Google does not establish notability, why are you going to such great lengths to claim that the number of hits it gives you is not accurate? Antandrus  (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the owner of the site was using that figure to claim notability, not only does it not establish notability, its not an accurate representation of how many hits it actually receives. What I propose is obviously whats covered in WP:WEP for establishing notability on a website. So even if we want to pretend that google hits has something to do with notability, we need to look at the correct number which is 44 per that search and not 800,000 any time google searches have been referenced its always the unique hits and not the magic number google pops up at the top which counts everytime its replicated on a page or site (like a forum where a term can easily have its google results blown through the roof if every members profile is indexed and each one contains that term).--Crossmr 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The first argument for deletion is that only 37 search results for RateItAll came up in Google. This number I dispute. The real number is over 800,000. The second argument for deletion is the lack of noteworthy sources referring to RateItAll. PC Magazine and ABC News (TV) have both features the website. I dispute the assertion and call them noteworthy.

Just as a test, I just ran a Google search three times, again, and each time about 800,000 hits came up on the return. I would entertain a discussion as to how the figures could be so disparate. Please advise.

GenghisTheHun 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * The real number isn't 800,000 as shown by browsing the search provided . Unique google hits are the only useful count, and 44 is all it gets.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The two reliable sources barely gets this over the WP:WEB bar. That said, every single one of the tags at the top of the article are accurate - in particular, it needs a serious NPOV adjustment and some major cleanup, but deletion just isn't warranted. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also disputing whether that PCmag source meets the criteria to be considered non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Crossmr, the PCMag article is a 783 word feature article in a leading tech magazine. Under what criteria do you find this trivial?
 * its not word count, its the nature of the coverage. There are a number of types of coverage described in the notability guidelines and I don't really feel this meets the required type of coverage to be a source. The ABC news report is obviously a good source, but this is simply a description of the sites features.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on grounds of continued additions; dispute claim of lack of Google Hits/alleged status of "Spam"

Upon researching the link listed above by one who says that there are only 37 hits for RateItAll on Google, I've found it to be very misleading: I actually clicked on the link, and it says "Results 31 - 40 of about 812,000 for "RateItAll". (0.27 seconds)". I am baffled that this would translate to being "37 hits" when it very clearly says there are "about 812,000".

In addition, I dispute that the article is an advertisement nor SPAM; there is no solicitation nor is it a PR piece, and upon taking a look at the epinions article on wikipedia, it really does not appear to have a significant difference in content.

Regardless, I would argue that the content of the page, though meager now, has a great deal of expansion capability. By all means, I would agree that the content requires a lot of work, but that comes with time, with thorough and proper research.

Kamylienne 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, the only thing that even remotely matters from google is the amount of unique hits. I'm also going to remind people that this is a discussion, not a vote. I'm noticing more than one user who's sole contributions are to this afd and that article.--Crossmr 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I can safely assume that the above comment is directed at my account: I wasn't aware that seniority was an issue at this site. As a first-time user, the small contribution that I had made so far IS on the one site that I feel I am familiar with enough to write on (rateitall), but simply because I don't have the expertise to edit pages entirely too well doesn't mean that, with practice, I won't expand to other articles.  I don't think anyone here would believe that this is a matter of "voting" by any means, but I do feel that pointing out any differences in translation on what is "spam" and what is not certainly qualifies for legitimate consideration.  Again, I still support the venture to put information on this website on Wikipedia, provided that it is expanded to a respectable amount of information (and I do agree that WP:WEB is a legitimate concern that requires addressing, but as this is still a new article, I think it can be worked on]]

66.231.142.107 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienne66.231.142.107 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of seniority, its a matter of long history on wikipedia. Its not uncommon for things like sockpuppets to suddenly spring up when an article is up for deletion, especially one that involves a website or web content. I'm not saying you're a sockpuppet, but any AfD which involves editors who have only made a few contributions and they're limited solely to the AfD and the article in question always has mention of that made, with a reminder that this is a discussion and not a vote.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: While I understand the concern in regards to "sockpuppets" (I guess that's the Wikipedia equivalent to "multi-ID spammer", if I'm understanding the link's article correctly), that would be an unfortunate side effect from being a "newbie" here; I know the guy who started the article is new at this, and I only joined in because I didn't realize that RateItAll didn't have an article up here.  Actually, it never occurred to me to look until I found out he was writing one.  Unfortunately for him and the article, I myself also don't know anything about editing stuff on Wikipedia either, so now you've got something that's entered in by two newbies (his contribution more than mine by all means), and it's bound to be a rough article when you don't have any experience.


 * But, I digress; as a newbie here, the best means of telling what's "good" and "not good" is comparison. So, when I looked up an article on a similiar type of website, I tried to see what the difference was, in order to figure out what needs to be done to get it to be "acceptable".  However, I am having difficulty discerning what the differences would be.  Not to pick on them or anything, as I think the page is nice, but I'm trying to compare content in the epinions article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinions) with the content on the rateitall article.  If you can point out what, as far as differences, the rateitall article needs to do to be "up to par" for wikipedia's standards, that would be very helpful in getting the page to be acceptable.  Kamylienne 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kamylienneKamylienne 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the discussion here is to determine if the article meets WP:WEB, which considers neither Google hits nor Alexa ranking. You can argue about Google until you are blue in the face, but the closing admin will just ignore it. The nominator asserted that this article does not meet WP:WEB, but few of the keep comments above address that point.  Debate the article, not the search engine. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then: so we are not discussing Google.  That's all right.  Please consider the comments of John Battelle, who is as reliable a source on the development of web technology as you are likely to find, who mentions RateItAll as a prime example of user-generated-content .  We get lots of non-notable sites on Wikipedia promoted by their creators: RateItAll is not one of them.  Look at the hits on the PC Magazine article, where RateItAll was the "site of the week".  RIA is not another throwaway forum or vanity website, the type we delete every day.  Please consider improving the article using reliable sources, and removing POV, rather than deleting it.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out on the rateitall talk page, and genghis's talk page that regardless of how reliable people think John Battelle is, there is no allowance in WP:V made for allowing him as a source, he is neither a well known journalist or professional researcher, so the comments he makes in a blog cannot be used as a reliable source. In regards to its promoter, the owner of the site has visited and commented on this AfD and encouraged the individual who is the main writer of the article publicly on the site. Whether its promoted by the creator or by the creator through proxy, its basically the same thing.--Crossmr 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a "well known journalist or professional researcher?" He published the bestselling book on Google; he's one of the founders of Wired Magazine; he's an expert on this stuff.  Of course his comments are allowable as a source.  Please use some common sense.  And you claim that the PC Magazine review of the site is "trivial"?  Huh?  That's a dedicated article about the site.  It's not a trivial passing mention at all.Antandrus  (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a description of its features, dedicated article or not. As far as Battelle goes, thank you for addressing that. I'd previously mentioned that I wasn't aware of him being a well known journalist and no one else bothered to defend it. If someone had bothered to point it out when I asked 2 days ago on the rateitall talk page it would have made it easier to verify this sites notability.--Crossmr 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another good mention in the San Francisco Chronicle. That's a reliable source by any measure. Antandrus  (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a reliable source, but as per WP:WEB this is a trivial mention. This is not a meaningful in depth article on Rateitall, its a passing mention, which lists it solely as an example. that doesn't satisfy the notability criteria.--Crossmr 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

''' John Battelle is an extremely well known journalist - along with Chris Anderson, I'd say he is one of two of the best known in the tech industry.

MSM Articles''': I've dug up some more references to RateItAll in the mainstream media. Some are better than others, but I think they reinforce the PC Mag, ABC News, and Battelle features pretty well:

San Jose Mercury News - Silicon Valley Wrap-Up http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/06/01/silicon_valley_wrapup_nowpublic_segway_affinity_engines_much_more.html

Mashable - Revenue Sharing for the Masses (big Web 2.0 blog, cited as source 18 times on Wikipedia) http://mashable.com/2006/05/30/googles-adsense-api-revenue-sharing-for-the-masses/

Columbia Daily Tribune - Take Steps to Prevent Buyer's Remorse http://columbiatribune.com/2006/May/20060516Busi001.asp

Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Rating Governors, Senators, and Food http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06132/689629-293.stm

WebProNews - Round Here Marketing - Marking Territory in Local Search (WebProNews has been cited 74 times as a source for Wikipedia articles)

iMedia - RateItAll Interactive Blog Directory http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/6427.asp

USA Today - Not Happy? Voice your complaints online http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/cckim049.htm

San Francisco Chronicle - Everyone's a Critic http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/22/BU42743.DTL

Atlanta Business Chronicle - Leaving Atlanta: Some tech start-ups make tough choices http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1999/12/06/story7.html
 * None of these sources establish notability. Reprints of the press release, blogs, and trivial mentions (like a news site which simply sticks a link to rateitall at the end of an article not about it) and simple comparisons (....like rateitall.com) are all trivial mentions.--Crossmr 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of Ghits, this website pops up in a lot of my Google searches. --Candy-Panda 13:15, 16 February 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.