Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social discovery platform


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Social discovery platform

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I PRODded this article, and it was deleted. But soon after, a much-shorter version was recreated.

WP:NEO says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (Please see also WP:42 and its definition of reliable secondary sources.) I looked on Google News a month ago but I don't think I found two such sources. Let's delete this article until multiple mainstream publications, such as The New York Times or BusinessWeek, provide definitions of this new term. Not tech-related trade publications. And definitely not websites like Mashable or The Drum or TechCrunch.

Later, if the term catches on, someone may contact the deleting admin, show them any new major sources which have been published, and request undeletion.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. CNN has an article about this, 'Social discovery' is this year's hot SXSW trend]. I found lots of other article using the term to describe various apps, but not many talking about the term itself. May I ask why you don't consider Mashable and TechCrunch reliable sources?  --Cerebellum (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As User:Ihcoyc has written elsewhere: "The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world. Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business." —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! I'm not sure I entirely agree but it's certainly food for thought.  I'm used to thinking about notability solely in terms of verifiability, so I only analyze sources based on their reliability, not so much their audience.  Really though, WP:INDISCRIMINATE must be considered also, which I suppose is where this idea and the local coverage part of WP:CORP come from.  Thanks for the reply! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I express no opinion about this article, but I do want to point out that the lengthy quote above is simply the opinion of one editor, rather than policy, guideline or any established consensus view. Trade publications vary in reliability, as does the reliability of content within trade publications. In my view, staff signed feature articles confer more notability than routine new product announcements. Aviation Week & Space Technology, though not a general circulation publication, is eminently reliable. If coverage in video game publications confers notability, so too should professional publications covering computer controlled machine tools or firefighting technology. And if the world's three leading vintage blacksmithing publications profile one of the best 21st century blacksmiths, I am inclined to accept that person's notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be a thing. I'm seeing significant coverage in Google News, and I don't buy the argument that technical journals fail to establish notability. I agree that mainstream, general-interest journals may be an indication of greater notability, but there's not much point in ranking notability. Once you have the minimum amount, you're all set. By my research, it satisfies WP:NEO and WP:N. For those who desire coverage by non-tech journalists, here's an article in The New York Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete OR RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the nominator - "Let's delete this article until multiple mainstream publications, such as The New York Times or BusinessWeek, provide definitions of this new term." I give you The The New York Times and  CNN... Meets the GNG.   Th e S te ve   17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The CNNMoney ref is perhaps acceptable.
 * But the New York Times ref which you and RichardStevens89 cite is not a newspaper article. It's instead a post on a Times-run weblog. I do not dispute that the post is reliable. I just dispute your claim that this weblog is a "mainstream publication".
 * Why am I being picky about notability?
 * Because if I'm not picky, we may end up with a low-quality article. And the article may end up full of low-quality text like the following text (of unencyclopedic tone) contributed by User:ReginaldTQ (talk):
 * "Social discovery is the practice of utilizing technology to find and meet new people. Technology is used to discover new people and sometimes new experiences shopping, meeting friends or even traveling. The discovery of new people is often in real-time, enabled by mobile apps. However, social discovery is not limited to meeting people in real-time, it also leads to sales and revenue for companies via social media. An example of retail would be the addition of social sharing with music, through the iTunes music store. There is a social component to discovering new music."
 * Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BITS: "A daily e-mail newsletter on the business of technology, with coverage from Times staff writers and a roundup of news from across the Web."  You're right, its not part of the Times print stories.  It's more informal stories from their staff writers, and it's in electronic format only.  However, more and more reliable sources are digital only.  Where does a Times staff newsletter fit in?
 * Because if I'm not picky, we may end up with a low-quality article. And the article may end up full of low-quality text like the following text (of unencyclopedic tone) contributed by User:ReginaldTQ (talk):
 * "Social discovery is the practice of utilizing technology to find and meet new people. Technology is used to discover new people and sometimes new experiences shopping, meeting friends or even traveling. The discovery of new people is often in real-time, enabled by mobile apps. However, social discovery is not limited to meeting people in real-time, it also leads to sales and revenue for companies via social media. An example of retail would be the addition of social sharing with music, through the iTunes music store. There is a social component to discovering new music."
 * Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BITS: "A daily e-mail newsletter on the business of technology, with coverage from Times staff writers and a roundup of news from across the Web."  You're right, its not part of the Times print stories.  It's more informal stories from their staff writers, and it's in electronic format only.  However, more and more reliable sources are digital only.  Where does a Times staff newsletter fit in?
 * Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BITS: "A daily e-mail newsletter on the business of technology, with coverage from Times staff writers and a roundup of news from across the Web."  You're right, its not part of the Times print stories.  It's more informal stories from their staff writers, and it's in electronic format only.  However, more and more reliable sources are digital only.  Where does a Times staff newsletter fit in?

As far as any "low-quality text", that is an article editing problem, easily fixable, and shouldn't affect whether the subject is notable or not. Th e S te ve  06:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Request - Before making a decision on this, is there a way for us to have a look at the the version of the article that was deleted 22 September? ~KvnG 17:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply talk to the admin who deleted it, User:Legoktm. Ask him/her to undelete all the deleted revisions, at least for the time being. —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have left a request on this administrator's talk page. ~KvnG 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Previously deleted article now available here. ~KvnG 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Social discovery definitely is notable and, since there's not already a separate article on that topic, I'm going to give the benefit of doubt and assume that's what's intended here. ~KvnG 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep-Per CNN and NYT. Even if the NYT coverage is on a NYT blog, it's still NYT, and it's still reliable.  If it were a SPS, that would be a different story, but does anyone really think that posts on a NYT owned/branded blog aren't subject to editorial review?  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:36, 5 November 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.