Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The eBossWatch Worst Bosses List


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The eBossWatch Worst Bosses List

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Promotional article for a HR startup that's seeking publicity by producing a list of the worst bosses in the world. Nice idea, if a bit grandiose, but the first list was only in December 2009 and the world is not leaping up and down with excitement. It seems to have lots of ghits but when you take away twitter, facebook, blogs and all the rest there are very few that are relevant (see here). Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N andy (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but the mainstream media (e.g. reliable sources) seems to have been leaping up and down with excitement about this newsworthy item, despite the fact that the 2009 list was the organization's first. This is probably due to the fact that this list made history by being the first list ever to actually name the "worst bosses" in a serious and professional manner.

The following is a list of reliable sources ("mainstream news organizations") that have covered and featured The Worst Bosses List and that relate directly to the subject of the article:

KOVR CBS 13 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOVR) http://cbs13.com/video/?id=64758@kovr.dayport.com

KMGH ABC 7 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMGH-TV) http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21966233/detail.html

Tulsa World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_World) http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20091213_46_E1_Youmig111919

The Oakland Tribune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oakland_Tribune) http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland/ci_13954503

KCRA-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCRA_3) http://www.kcra.com/news/21914330/detail.html

KGO AM 810 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGO_(AM)) http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=1620682&spid=20399

KFBK AM 1530 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFBK) http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=172730&article=6457286 Abbashele (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:N states that "...it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" and also that "...not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources" (my emphasis). Given the nature of the press material that eBossWatch pushes out it would be surprising if local news media did not run stories. But that alone is not sufficient for notability. andy (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Not notable, most coverage of this site is through recycled PRWEB press releases. I do not believe that EBossWatch should merit an article either. Shritwod (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The existence of press releases is irrelevant in determining whether a topic merits its own article. Wikipedia states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  There are seven "reliable sources" listed above that have featured this topic.  Because this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it has clearly satisified Wikipedia's notability inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Abbashele (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is your site, I take it? Therefore WP:COI and other guidelines apply. I can see exactly one syndicated story in Google news during 2009 about the whole site. Not notable enough to be mentioned here when several hundred thousand more notable sites are also not listed. Shritwod (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:COI: "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.  Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage."  Wikipedia notability guidelines do not state that the "level of notability" of articles should be judged against those of other articles (an exercise that would be extremely subjective).  Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of your argument.  I don't see any reason why there should be a certain order that new article submissions should follow.  Each article/topic should be judged by itself to see if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which this article clearly meets for reasons that I mentioned above).Abbashele (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not only based on notability, but BLP concerns. Whatever these people did to be named a 'worst boss', it doesn't really assert that they deserved it unless they went through a legal due process and could be completely made up. As for the references above, they didn't lead the news, they were just talked about in short bursts to fill an empty one-minute timeslot and get in a happy talk one liner, hardly sealing notability.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ' Keep' As the article states, a panel of nationally-recognized workplace experts selected and ranked the "worst bosses," so it's hardly likely that the list is "completely made up," as you suggested. Furthermore, a quick review of the list reveals that the vast majority of the "worst bosses" have been taken to court by the EEOC or by current or former employees.  Abbashele (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The etiquette is only one "vote" per debate (not that it's really a vote anyway) so there's no need to keep saying Keep. Nate makes a very good point about WP:BLP - this article is linking to potentially libellous statements made by a third party. If any one of the "worst bosses" decides to sue wikipedia it could be awkward and embarrassing. WP:BLP makes it clear that the article should contain links to reliable sources - and I don't mean eBossWatch itself but the EEOC cases etc. andy (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as this list lacks any coverage from sources that are independent of the HR company itself. Press releases and other routine coverage are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable.  In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..."  the policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial".  Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works".  If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators.  Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria.  This website does not pass any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB.
 * 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.