Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiteJabber


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

SiteJabber

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-notable product/company review website. Source 1, 3, 4, 7 are from the company's website. Source 5, 14 and 15 is non-existent. Source 6, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and is a trivial mention. Source 7, notice of a grant award. Not press of any sort. Source 9 is the company bio listed on another website. Source 10 - borderline article from MarketWatch. Less about the topic and more about pet medication scams with data used from topic's website. Source 11 - also from MarketWatch. Policy notes multiple articles from same publisher counts as 1. Source 12 - fails WP:CORPDEPTH, simply mentions the founder in the top line. Source 13 - trivial mention in bottom line of the article. Source 2 - best source available of the lot. The Press Coverage listed in the 4th section of the article is not what it appears to be, and many articles cannot be found, or lack depth. no other sources found to warrant a Wikipedia page about this business. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep My reading of nom's is there's the equivalent of one qualifying source cited. Here's another . ~Kvng (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is my opinion that source #2 in the article counts towards notability, yes. I did see the source you cited and thought it lacked WP:CORPDEPTH because it just cites it's Chrome Extension, and doesn't offer deep coverage or analysis. Almost everything I've found is basically that: lacking depth or trivial. I found more details about the topic in forums and online discussions from the general public citing it as a scam site, , , , . Given the fact that the article mostly cites the topic's own press releases, profiles and verbiage from its own website, it increased my suspicions about the notability of this topic. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wanted to find out about SiteJabber, and I found this discussion very informative, at least for my purposes, even tho the informative stuff seems to be unreliable and possibly unfair. Unfortunately this info will all disappear as soon as the deletion is accepted or rejected. But I assume there's no point (and ultimately probably rightly so) in me voting to keep the article and also keep the link from it to this discussion (and without that link I suspect I should probably vote for deletion, but I'm not sufficiently sure to actually do so, at least at present, and probably also not sufficiently interested to come back to do so later).Tlhslobus (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , no special qualifications are required to weigh in on one of these discussions. This discussion page remains accessible regardless of the outcome. If the outcome is keep a link is added from the article's talk page to this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .I didn't realize there would be a link from the Talk Page if we vote to Keep, even if that's a bit harder for a reader to find than when the link is from the article itself as at present. But any link if we vote to delete is unlikely to be easily found by readers such as me who are just looking for an article about SiteJabber, so in a way you've given me a reason to vote for Keep, but since this would be for reasons that have nothing to do with normal (and probably wise) Wikipedia policy and practice, I don't think I'll bother. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then again, on further reflection, my original reasons may not be good ones, but yours seemingly are, so I think I'll vote Keep per Kvng.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , this article covers both the company and its namesake product. The Lifehacker article definitely has significant coverage of the product. ~Kvng (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete For the references presented, are a bad example of low-quality references, that qualify as WP:SPS or WP:NOT or fail WP:SIRS and the article references are much the same. Lifehacker is considered an unreliable source and is effectively non-RS.   scope_creep Talk  01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kvng.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, can you please clarify your vote? Is your vote because you think the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia, or because you do/don’t want the link to this discussion available to anyone searching the topic? The topic has been nominated for notability concerns, but you mentioned keeping this page for readers who are just looking for an article about SiteJabber. I’m confused by the back-and-forth between you and Kvng. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors who vote as Keep per, generally get their vote discounted by the closing administrator. An argument is always neeed.   scope_creep Talk  11:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "SiteJabber (www.sitejabber.com) was opened in 2009 by a disgruntled web shopper as a forum where customers could report on their good and bad web experiences. It has reviews for more than 17,000 sites, which is the largest number in the sites discussed here by far.  ... Unfortunately, poor browse and search features limit access to SiteJabber's good content. There is no subject classification for browsing. Search is limited to a simple keyword search without advanced options that would allow searching for reviews from Trusted Reviewers or for reviews of a specified rating, for example. Otherwise, the site is well-organized, attractive, supported by private funding, and without any ads."  The article notes: "SiteJabber isn't just for rating Web stores and online retailers to see if they're legitimate, the service is also designed to give consumers a place to vent their frustrations and share their good experiences so others can benefit from them."  The article notes: "Now SiteJabber, which launches today, is hoping to be the Yelp for websites and online businesses. The new site is almost an exact replica of the Yelp model, and it gives members the ability to voice their stellar and not so stellar reviews of online businesses." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SiteJabber to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2021 (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 and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep has coverage in some major publications such as WSJ, MarketWatch, plus PC Mag and Mashable articles provided by Cunard are good enough to show notability. Peter303x (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.