Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute (website)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOT § INTERNET we observe that “Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner. The article furthermore is not discussed in in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore the website fails to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. A before search turns up no reliable sources, the sources observed are either user generated, self published, or sources with no reputation for fact checking. Note that the article doubles as both a website and an organization. A clear WP:NCORP fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like the page has substantial coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references. The features in The New Yorker,[1] and Inc.,[2] and decent amount of coverage in NPR,[3] seem like they meet WP:GNG. I can't see anywhere that they're user generated or self published. It looks like they're regular staff articles. (Edit: Adding New York Daily News article([4]) BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m afraid I don’t see where WP:SIGCOV is met, the first source isn’t discussing the website in itself thus SIGCOV isn’t met. The second source is literally not loading. The third source isn’t even about the website, literally, it however mentions them but it relies on the organization see a portion of the source “ Tribute says it was the first, starting in 2015. Its prices range from $29 for a DIY version to $100 for the full-service "concierge" option, which includes all the editing, plus perks like email reminders for contributors if the sender sets a deadline” That is blatant advertising/ relying on a source not independent of organization thus can’t be counted as a reliable piece. See WP:ORGIND & WP:COISOURCE. To further expatiate on this point, I find them adverting(spamming?) and track them down to a Nigerian website (Nairaland) (blacklisted here) advertising their services. There is literally no source (independent) that discusses the website in accordance to what is contained in WP:WEBCRIT. I’m not seeing SIGCOV in reliable pieces, for example in the article I note this source which has the byline as the name of the source, this is either an op-ed (guest editor) or an opinion piece by the Editorial either way, we do not put credence to opinion pieces nor op-Ed’s not properly attributed, I’m sorry but there are no reliable pieces that discuss this website. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, the first source is about the founder founding the company, which is close enough for me tbh since the page is about both the website and the company. The second one loads fine for me? See if the archived version works better. The majority of the third article is about the site, but I get what you mean about the writer sourcing info directly from the company. Do you mean that you found the company spamming on a Nigerian website or the editor who made the page? If it looked like the company I wonder if that was some kind of scam. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there, I'm the creator of the page and have reviewed your helpful comments. I do understand the concern over the sources in question, as they reference the company and founders more so than the website itself. I have replaced the first and third sources with sources that directly discuss the website itself with more in-depth coverage. As for the mention of the Nigerian website spam, that is something that I'm completely unaware of and was not my intention to use any blacklisted sources. Can you please clarify this? Thank you and please let me know of any other concerns that can be addressed in order to avoid deletion.Hattiedog (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by BuySomeApples. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article could use some improvement, but WP:GNG is met, and a merely imperfect article doesn't require deletion. Yitz (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (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.