Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VOIS.com

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 Nakon 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VOIS.com

Fails WP:WEB, sources are nothing but blogs. These neither pass WP:V nor establish notability. Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crossmr. --real _decimic 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problems with sources and notablitly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad sources = bad notability.Undeath (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mashable, while an Internet-only publication, is big enough to be notable and a reliable source. The Alexa data demonstrates enough traffic for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB traffic ranking isn't one of the criteria usable to demonstrate notability, and the mashable link is only in regards to their award, nothing else. Unless it can be demonstrated that those awards are notable and recognized as such.--Crossmr (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also the website has an award from Mashable, and even it's a blog this looks pretty strong. --PET (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the award a notable award? that second link is also a blog. Even if it wasn't a blog its hardly significant coverage as required per WP:WEB.--Crossmr (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Mashable has a Wikipedia article that means it's notable. --PET (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means the website is notable, doesn't mean their awards are. Notability isn't inherited.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly do you want to prove that awards is notable? It's an award given from a big "blog" that HAS a wikipedia page. You can see some photos + VIDEO with the awards here. So it wasn't just a blog post, it was an event. --PET (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply would the awards qualify for an article on their own? Is there significant coverage of the awards by reliable sources independent of the subject (that would include those nominated or trying to be nominated for an award there). If there is, then the award qualifies as notable per wikipedia's standards and can be used to establish the notability of the site, because outside of that there hasn't been anything provided which remotely establishes the notability of this site. If the coverage for the awards does exist I might also recommend starting a stub on it using those sources for future reference.--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just search google for "Open Web Awards". You will find a lot of links of blogs. I don't see why an award made by an important website is not notable. It was hosted on a big event, I gave you a link where it proves as a big event (video, pictures, lights, shampagne, big hotel). This was the first edition of the awards so it may not be so notable as the oscars :). What else do you suggest to do so the article can stay? --PET (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do not establish notability. They're not reliable sources per wikipedia's criteria except in extremely limited fashion (in the event they're not really blogs and in fact operate like a newspaper with editorial oversight, or the blog is written by the subject of the wikipedia article, and can be reliably identified as such). From WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want to use the Mashable awards as evidence that this website is notable then you need to demonstrate that those awards are notable per the guidelines since it hasn't previously been done. That's the only thing that can be done, because none of the other presented coverage meets the notability guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you answers. How do you think we can prove Mashable notabilty?

Later Edit: LINK <- isn't this notable? It mentions VOIS.com and it's an important newspaper in Florida written by a proffesional reporter. --PET (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what is called a trivial mention. There is no significant coverage of VOIS in that article, simply a name drop. VOIS needs to either be the subject of an article from a reliable source, or a significant part of a larger article by a reliable source. To establish the notability of the mashable awards you need to provide reliable sources (e.g. no blogs, forums, or other self-published sources) that give significant coverage to the awards and are independent of the awards. That means if someone is writing about the awards and asking people to vote for them in the awards, they're not really independent of them. So if a magazine or newspaper or something like that has given some non-trivial attention to those awards then it will help you establish their notability and in doing so establish the notability of VOIS. --Crossmr (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (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.