Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiZiQ

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. Sandstein 06:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WiZiQ

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't think top 1k in India alexa rating cuts it. See wp:n ErikHaugen (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Consider this reference: Deal Radar 2008: WiZiQ. The whole blog post is about 800 words and is entirely devoted to WiZiQ (this speaks to significant coverage ). In terms of reliable source : the blogger, Sramana Mitra, has been featured on Forbes.com and is also a columnist. Certainly people wouldn't argue that Forbes isn't a reliable source. I have no professional affiliation with WiZiQ however I have used the site for online classes. (Primary author) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's definitely a case where a blog does show notability, but that isn't multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I've added two additional sources to the article. One from Mashable, and another from a source called Silicon India. This isn't rocket science however if you are willing to go with the reasoning: if there is an article for site X, and site Y is in the same market as site X, but there is no article for site Y then we can compare the rationale for site X with the rationale for site Y. Let's say site X is Edufire and site Y is WiZiQ. If people are saying Delete then do you think Edufire ought to be deleted? Both WiZiQ and Edufire have articles in Mashable. Edufire has an article in a magazine called Venture Beat, and an article in TechCrunch. Both are in the TechCrunch database. WiZiQ has an article in Sramana Mitra's blog who is a columnist for Forbes. WiZiQ has a much higher Alexa traffic rank than Edufire (about 7 times more, 7,172 [1] versus 52,366 [2]). Seems to me we ought to just let people know about both sites. (Primary author) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Jjjjjjjjjjj, I went ahead and switched your bold "keep" to "comment", which is how most Wikipedia editors preface their remarks once they have already opined "keep" or "delete" once. This is so that the closing admin doesn't misread the discussion and see two votes from one editor. Them From Space 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment ThemFromSpace, thanks for helping me to understand how wikietiquette works in this deletion page. My article may be headed for the digital oval filing cabinet, but perhaps I still had a learning experience. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I struck out some of the comments I made because I think I had gone a little bit off topic. I'll provide a comment here below with the three sources that I believe warrant keeping the article. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unconvinced of the subject's notability. As always, I am happy to reconsider if additional evidence is presented. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete above) The new references (barely) provide sufficient evidence of notability. The references needs to be better incorporated into the article (there should not be a "Notability" section!) but they're there and that's what we need. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence of notability according to WP:N or WP:WEB. Them From Space 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three articles which speak to the notability of the website:

. Sramana Mitra's blog -- She is a columnist for Forbes.
. Mashable article -- Mashable, a high traffic Internet news blog.
. SiliconIndia article -- SilcionIndia is described by LinkedIn as a prominent and reliable website.

All of these articles are meeting significant coverage.

And what I wrote here is speaking to reliable sources.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And WiZiQ is also on LinkedIn [3] Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. There does not seem to be (at this point of time) enough significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Also, about this, "top 1000" is not a significant claim to notability. Aditya Ex Machina 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That isn't what WP:RS says about blogs:

Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.

The professional standing of Sramana Mitra is established in this case.

It seems to me very unfair to WiZiQ to delete the article. If there is going to be fair competition between sites like Edufire, Myngle and WiZiQ people need to know about all sites so that they can all improve and can work off each other.

I think if Wikipedia decides to delete WiZiQ the only fair thing then is to delete Myngle and Edufire.

I've used both Edufire and WiZiQ (I know people who have used Myngle, but I haven't used it myself). I'd confess that I found WiZiQ to be somewhat better run in my limited experience using the sites.

I would not advocate deleting any of the three sites, but keeping all of them, so they can compete fairly with one another.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - it would be better to discuss the notability of Myngle/etc on their talk pages, probably. Also, Wikipedia does not try to be a place to provide equal time for competing products. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have specified. There are very few blogs that are written by professional, well-known authors. These blogs in question might be an RS, though I'm not familiar with Mitra's reputation and a Google search really does not help. If we analyze the sources: Alexa's ranking does not justify notability (top 1000 in India is not significant enough on its own). Crunchbase is definitely not an RS (its an anyone-can-edit sort of thing). The 3 blogs you mentioned might be notable, and could satisfy the "multiple non-trivial" requirement of WP:WEB. However verifiability is again a problem. To take care of verifiability problems the article will have to be stubbed (brutally). I still think it should be deleted until there's more non-trivial coverage, but if this article is kept then I'll take care of the pseudo-promotional and unsourced material. Oh, and fair competition is not our concern, really. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'll look at the other articles you mentioned and, if needed, open up an AfD. Aditya Ex Machina 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that crunchbase takes user generated content. I did not know at all that was how it worked. Despite the fact that it has to go through moderators [4] there may be some mistakes as they say in their FAQ [5]. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the moderators are there to filter out abuse and not check the validity of information submitted. A third opinion would be good though. Aditya Ex Machina 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this article further, it seems that most of the article has been written from primary sources, so verifiability is a problem too. Aditya Ex Machina 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm not sure what you mean by verifiability. Are you referring to a Wikipedia guideline? Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:V. Aditya Ex Machina 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V the article needs to cite what will likely be challenged:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

The question is then what in the article is likely to be challenged. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The features section, and the "The WiZiQ virtual classroom... " paragraph should be sourced. This is not the place to discuss this though. Here we're just establishing notability, and whether enough sources exist to write an article. The details are sorted out on the talk page. Anyway, we'll wait for more opinions. Aditya Ex Machina 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough reliable sources to just about meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2010 (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.