Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COLOURlovers
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- COLOURlovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed prod. Site fails WP:WEB rules for notability. Won no important awards and has not received the requisite press or scholarly recognition via multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite a lot of hits. A lot of them are not entirely RS but this looks OK,[1] and there must be others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2012
- Interesting !vote, you seem to be saying keep on the one had but agreeing with the nominator with the other, in that the sources are not reliable. If a subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources it does not meet any of our inclusion criteria, so should be deleted. Mtking (edits) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article obviously meets WP:WEB, with references in multiple independent, reliable sources – including winning multiple Webby Awards and with coverage from Time magazine in one its yearly "best websites" list. Steven Walling • talk 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, but no. It did NOT win ANY Webby Awards at all. It was merely nominated, which tons of websites get and which does not meet our notability standards. Furthermore, being mentioned in some reliable sources once in a great while is not enough to demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. The coverage must also be non-trivial. A single paragraph as part of a discussion of many websites is trivial. The OregonLive article sounds like a joke or press release. To demonstrate enough notability for an article the site must be the sole topic of multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. This site does not have that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To use your phrase: sorry, but no. Neither WP:WEB nor the GNG say that you thinking a major newspaper article is a joke is a qualification for disregarding reliable published sources. The basic tests of notability and verifiability are whether we have enough sources to make basic factual claims about a subject, and in this case that is clearly true. Thus, the article should be kept. Steven Walling • talk 05:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, but no. It did NOT win ANY Webby Awards at all. It was merely nominated, which tons of websites get and which does not meet our notability standards. Furthermore, being mentioned in some reliable sources once in a great while is not enough to demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. The coverage must also be non-trivial. A single paragraph as part of a discussion of many websites is trivial. The OregonLive article sounds like a joke or press release. To demonstrate enough notability for an article the site must be the sole topic of multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. This site does not have that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks significant coverage, fails to meet any of our inclusion guidelines, not notable. Mtking (edits) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So the main claims to fame here are basically those mentioned in this post on a blog for Oregon-based startups. The Time writeup is one paragraph on a "top 50" list (#40 to be precise). Two nominations for the Webby Awards "Best Community Website" category is not in itself notable given that the site didn't win, and its nomination doesn't seem to have been covered by reliable secondary sources to any significant extent. Apparently it won the WebVisions Web Visionary Award in 2008, though that particular award doesn't have an article here and its website is impossible to navigate and thus even verify. There is one additional possibly notable event, the million dollars in angel investment. However, I don't recall any consensus that Web startups were notable so long as TechCrunch picked up on their funding. I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:WEB. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't just some fly-by-night startup that once got a TechCrunch post. It's a staple of the design community and has been around for years, not to mention being one of the more famous Web companies to come out of Portland. I think the combined sources from the tech press, the regional paper, etc. are enough to pass general notability guidelines. There's a reason the article has been around for quite some time. Steven Walling • talk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its being a "staple of the design community" or "one of the more famous Web companies to come out of Portland" needs backed up by reliable secondary sources, which still haven't been linked here nor added to the article. You argued nine days ago that it had won two Webby awards when in fact it had only been nominated, so I'm not particularly inclined to take further assertions at face value. The GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not a horde of trivial ones. Neither the subject's having "been around for years" nor the article's having been "around some time" are arguments based on our consensus on notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't just some fly-by-night startup that once got a TechCrunch post. It's a staple of the design community and has been around for years, not to mention being one of the more famous Web companies to come out of Portland. I think the combined sources from the tech press, the regional paper, etc. are enough to pass general notability guidelines. There's a reason the article has been around for quite some time. Steven Walling • talk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: it is not difficult to find widespread, significant critical reviews, such as The Guardian, DevLounge, Moo, WP Candy, and Gizmodo. —EncMstr (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they get reviews, but given the notice on the top of the devlounge one, how many of the others are the same, nothing to indicate that this website gets any non-routine coverage. Mtking (edits) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.