Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motoroids (3rd nomination)

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motoroids

Motoroids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There are no independent, reliable sources that tell us anything about Motoroids, because the website has not been the subject of any coverage whatsoever. It has won no awards, and nobody has expressed any curiosity about this website, how it is run, who writes for it, or what makes it unique. The only independently published fact we have about Motoroids is its Alexa rank.

(Since this is a 3rd nomination, what follows is a very long discussion of what went wrong in the last AfD)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motoroids (2nd nomination), one editor (@Anupmehra:) argued that it should be kept based on WP:WEBCRIT #1, "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." While it is true that there the International Business Times routinely summarizes bits of automotive content from Motoroids, and HighBeam has similar hits for a mysterious magazine called Auto Business News (ABN), the content that is picked up by other publications is entirely trivial, or WP:ROUTINE.

The content is generated thus: Harley-Davidson India emails out a press release, crowing that they are going to open some new dealerships. Motoriods proceeds to write a blog post, Harley-Davidson opens two new dealerships in Surat and Bengaluru consisting mostly of direct quotes from Harley-Davidson's press release. The following day over at International Business Times, another blogger reads the Motoroids blog post about the H-D press release, and writes their own short summary, Harley-Davidson Opens New Dealerships in Bangalore, Surat, crediting Motoroids for the "scoop" and again heavily quoting the original press release. This cycle is repeated dozens of times, perhaps hundreds. Every time you read a "according to Motoroids this" or "Motoroids reported that", if you click the link, it consists of nothing but Motoroids blogging a quick gloss of a press release from a car or motorcycle company.

The previous AFD failed to note that WP:WEBCRIT does not count "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content" which is all that Motoroids gets, and even then, it's only for rehashing press releases.

The fact that Motoroids gets cited by others might be an argument to trust it as a WP:RS, but reliability is not equivalent to notability.

If we are to have an article about Motoroids, what should the article say? We have no sources that verify that it was formerly called Motoroids2, was founded in 2009, has an office in Mumbai, or has a team of 8 writers and 2 photographers. Nobody has published anything about Motoroids except an Alexa rank. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 July 2016 (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.