Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorpals

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. Consensus seems to be that the sources are either too unreliable or too sparsely mention the company to truly meet the notability criteria. Much of the keep side relied on arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE without refuting the points brought up by the delete side. NW (Talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favorpals

Favorpals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, declined speedy nominee. Makes a claim to notability, but nothing to substantiate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if references are added to the claims of coverage, then Keep. Otherwise, the statements are not backed up. Clubmarx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a reference. The company appears to be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found those two references, but as both of them are a single paragraph mention saying that the company exists (which no one doubts), I didn't think it was significant coverage as per WP:NOTABILITY. I quote the relevant sections below. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Out of all the shows/websites mentioned, I could only find a reference on the Yahoo!Green website (which I have added). The other websites have no mention, and the only mentions I can find about "Today" and "KRON" are on the company's own website and press releases. Noble is not the same as notable. All the hits found on Google News Search for "favorpals.com" were either the same press release via PRWEB or were 'Page not found' results. The only one I could find said "I placed 2 ads on favorpals.com and got no replies, but then there were only 15 listed in [my] area." Fails WP:COMPANY -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COMPANY]. Articles only briefly mention Favorpals as an example of a bartering service; not the primary focus of the article. I can't see this meeting notability standards. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PhantomSteve. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the Phantom. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I live in Oakland, Favorpals is very known in San Francisco bay area, they sponsor many services exchange events around here and I've seen the founders give talks in Berkeley Earth day and few other events about their vision of a world without money. In fact, their theory of using the collective collaboration of the web to ease the pain created by the weak economy is much similar to Wikipedia's vision of the knowledge gained by the collective consciousness, It will be a shame not to include them in WP -- one more reference to support them, their interview on Good Day Sacramento, http://gooddaysacramento.com/showinfo?articleID=48595 Amazis (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — Amazis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting that your very first edit would be a vote in an AfD... --Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have spent a bit of time looking in depth at the citations (13 as I type):
  • 3 are from the company's own blog
  • 4 are from other blogs (Greenwala, CheapandEasySF, Bargains 4 Seniors, Yahoo!Green)
  • 3 mention favorpals.com as an example of a barter site (1-3 sentences) - none of them are about the site, but the idea of bartering (News&Observer 3 sentences, MSNBC 2 sentences, Examiner 1 sentence)
  • 1 is local coverage (Good Day Sacramento) - no indication of any importance beyond the area
  • 1 is the MSN Today report - 22 seconds mention (in a section of the segment mentioning other barter sites as well) out of just over 5-1/2 mins reporting (6.5%)
  • 1 I couldn't get to work (Herald) - I'm having connections problems, but that might be at my end
• Comment (cont) None of these would be what I would call significant coverage - which is what WP:NOTABILITY requires. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Following the train of thought above, an initiative can provide thousands of references only to be dismissed by using words like blog, seconds or sentences. 22 Second on the Today show means 6 million viewers have been introduced to the site. The Yahoo green "blog" is written by Lori Bongiorno, one of the most celebrated writers in the green/environmental sector, and the list goes on. I believe that the original commentators are falling victims to a weapon of influence called "commitment and consistency", you've already made your initial judgment and you're committed to supporting it no mater what. -Amazis
  • Response: When I looked into the references, I looked up both Lori Bongiorno (but she didn't have a Wikipedia article) and Yahoo! Green - which did not refer to her either. The cited reference is Lori's blog (the page calls itself 'The Conscious Consumer blog'). Let me explain why I 'dismissed by using' the words:
    • 'blog': As a rule, as blogs are self-published, they are not generally regarded as reliable sources of information.
    • 'seconds' - WP:NOTABILITY mentions significant coverage - a quick mention amongst other websites would not be generally thought of as significant.
    • 'sentences' - again, if there are only 1 or 2 sentences in an article about the subject, it would not be considered significant coverage.
  • I am neither a deletionist or an inclusionist with regard to articles being included in Wikipedia. If you look at my history, you will see that there have been some articles I have personally put up for PROD or AFD which I have later removed that nomination for, as I have been convinced by the arguments raised in discussion. There have been other articles which have been unreferenced that I have added citations for, even though I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject matter. I personally do not feel that the references given meet the criteria required by WP:NOTABILITY. Others may feel differently than I do, and that is perfect OK - that is the whole purpose of this discussion. If someone finds a reference that shows this website's notability, I would gladly change my recommendation. (If they found an entire article about the company on a reliable source, such as a newspaper's site, or a news article on a TV show, rather than a quick "here is one example of such a site 'favourpals', here are some more..."). Unless this happens, I personally won't be convinced of the notability of favorpals - nobility is not the same as notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for taking the time to explain your rational. So here are my replies to some of your points.

Regarding your argument "I looked up both Lori Bongiorno (but she didn't have a Wikipedia article) and Yahoo! Green - which did not refer to her either." I'm siting the Yahoo Green article about Lori Bongiorno http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer

Regarding your argument "or a news article on a TV show, rather than a quick "here is one example of such a site 'favourpals'" -

Per their article, they had two full TV stories, one on Good Day Sacramento, and the other on KRON San Francisco TV, both are in the category of major TV Market of the USA. I do not mean any disrespect when I say that your opinion is very subjective when you chose to over look those two full stories and only signify the ones that you believe do not qualify the notability.

I really wish other environmentalists can join this conversation which I think is missing the point by focusing more on "word's definitions" rather than the green issue at hand. Favorpals advocacy for micro-transactions and excess inventory recycling for both services and products is an avant-guard economical theory, and it might be what the world need to recover from this vulnerable stage of unbalanced economy. It's really unfortunate to see them being dismissed over the subjective understanding of the word "notability", of which, in my opinion, they had fulfilled and qualified. -Amazis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.4.140 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your response. As far as CW 31 and KRON are concerned - although their potential audience are large, notability on wikipedia normally required national or international coverage - these are both essentially examples of local coverage. I am not over-looking those because they are favourable in the argument in favour of keeping the article - they still do not make the article meet the notability criteria.
  • The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia - it is not Wikipedia's to focus on green issues. If those issues have reliable sources of information which meet the encyclopedia's criteria for notability, then that's all well and good - but at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia. I am however adding this to the "Environment" delsort category, which I neglected to do on Sunday when I put it in the other delsort cats. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI am a Favorpals member and have to say, I really appreciate the scrutiny this article is going through but at the same time I have to say their approach, Favorpals, is rather unique and that is why I have been using them. I really like the idea of reusing the skills which is leveling the playing field. Their uniqueness is in their simplicity and ease of use. After reading these comments I did a research of my own, and found multiple coverages by TV stations in Miami, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle. This is in addition to the coverages to California stations. From my humble opinion they do cover the notability since it expands across multiple states and cities across US in addition to various website articles, and blogs. --TraderSteve (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — TraderSteve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Then please show us this fine research of yours. Note that blogs are in most cases not accepted as establishing notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Cybercobra. Ignoring the blogs, if you can show that the multiple coverages by all those TV stations are more than a few seconds' coverage (along the lines of "here is an example, Favourpals.com... here is another example) - in other words, it is significant coverage (and also not just re-showing the footage on Good Morning Sacromento, it needs to be seperate coverage, by the station(s) themselves), then add citations. Just saying it was done is not an argument in favour of keeping the article - and since you say that you found them, I'm assuming it was through an internet search. I couldn't find other coverage, but that does not mean it isn't out there! So if you can cite the website(s) you found, what channel/station is was broadcast on, and when, then add those to the article. Showing coverage nationally (but again, they need to be a complete news story about favorpals, not just a few seconds) would make it notable, but I've not found verifiable evidence of this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1)The Blog for favorpals has links to Today Show by Matt Lauer interviewing Farnoosh Torabi and discussing favorpals, Today show is a national program which has its audience in millions.
      2)A link to Kron4 news channel which serves San Francisco/Bay area has also been made available on the blog containing the interview with the founders.
      3)The ABC 13 Houston has also been made available in the blog.
      4)The Good Day Sacramento has also been made available containing the interview with the founders.
      This brings the tally to 4 different TV stations/programs where 2 are in california, 1 in Texas and one is national.
      5)An article in mainstreet.com discussing favorpals.
      
      Truth of it is we can go on, and discuss this for a long time, there is a group who truly believe this article is not only noble but notable and there is another group who believes that is not the case. I have not listed every single website and blogs since it has been stated that it is not notable, I disagree with that but for sake of peace I will move on with that topic.--TraderSteve (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, can I point out that no one here is saying that the principle behind favorpals.com isn't a worthy one - I think most (if not all) of us would say that it is a noble idea... but noble is not the same as notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per me agreeing with the other Keep sayers. This is an article with atleast the minimum of notability needed to establish an article. And it is well referenced.--Judo112 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (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.