Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experts-Exchange

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. Nomination withdrawn, article has shown improvement with reference added since it was tagged for AfD PeaceNT 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts-Exchange

Experts-Exchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Advert for commercial venture, with associates of the venture adding weight against critics of the venture. Gomez2002 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I regard your opinion but I object. Looking at the talk page, you can see that people with different points of view are involved in a discussion on how to wikify the article. The solution is not to delete the article, but to help improving it. I've been trying to gather relevant information from available and verifiable sources within the past few weeks. I'm slow on it I know, but I'm trying as much as I can.

In addition, I belive what you mentioned is not a good reason for deleting an article. If people assosciated with Experts Exchange are adding weight against its critics in an illegal way, it is their fault, nothing to do with the article. If available facts against EE are few and/or not verifiable, this again does not mean the article should be deleted. And finally, the article does not explicitely advertise Experts Exchange or even compare it with similar services in a way which may make people feel more positive about it or negative about the others.

Regards, huji—TALK 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, few or no verifiable facts about an article is the primary reason for deletion, as per WP:V. The only reliable source I could find was [1], a trivial review going on 3 years old. There is precious little coverage about the site in its current incarnation anywhere, and certainly not enough to help eliminate any of the citation concerns in the article. That said, there does seem to be a reasonable amount of chatter about two things... 1) the old domain name, but that confusion is already covered in Domain names, and 2) that some experts-exchange articles are cloaking the google bot to get a higher ranking [2] which is somewhat covered in Criticisms. However, I don't think either of of those topics are meaty enough to fill out an entire article, especially if the rest of the article is purged of the unverifiable statements, so make mine a Weak Delete until the WP:V issues get resolved. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I said right at the start of the discussion that it was spam. I tried to offset puff that was stuffed into it by EE associates, and then we saw a senior member of EE staff engaging in a campaign to purge anything that was critical.

The fact that it is filled with unverified facts both pro and con is enough reason to delete it. However, there is still the matter of the patent. That is verified. The patent does exist. That can still be the basis for an article but the critics of the site are not going to abandon the dispute over other facts as long as administrators and other associates of EE insist on making it a promotional piece or even a review of the site. Some of the negative things entered were an over reaction to EE staff being involved.

What is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article is the patent. Just about anything else is going to fuel an argument. It would be a shame to lose the article. My preferece is not to delete it, but if it is not about the patent, then there is nothing to qualify it for a Wikipedia article. There are thousands of Internet sites just like EE; forums where experts answer questions. The only thing different about EE is the patent. While there is very little research; and not much in the way of independent reviews, there is the fact that the patent exists and is the basis of a point and grading system that makes them unique. whether they are a unique tech support site, or a unique game can be debated, but that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

I guess the best is delete, and hope that we get an article based on the patent at some point.

COBOLdinosaur 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting. I couldn't really find any precedent for basing an article exclusively on a patent, and I'm not entirely convinced its a great idea. The only thing that exists to tie the expert-exchange website to the patent is the assignee, and there's no verifiable proof that they actually use the algorithm as designed. Other then the USPTO, there are zero third-party sources about the patent, and there isn't any reason to believe this patent is notable in the least. Prove me wrong? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing to prove. If you go back and read what I said, we are not in disagrement; that it should be deleted. All I am saying is that the only thing that might be of value is the patent; which you correctly extend to implementation of the patent. If someone can supply the verifiction as to the implementation of the patent then there may be something to salvage. EE is just one of thousands of forums. I am not aware of anything they have done that is inovative. The patent was the only thing that was unique, and I can also not find any independent support to indicate it is actually being used. There are also other forums with point based ratings and grading that may be violating the patent and I have not been able to find any history or evidence that EE has ever taken action to defend the patent. It appears that the argument I made in support of the patent is moot and deletion should proceed. - COBOLdinosaur 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete as unverified,--- indeed many of the links are simply "questions answered of Ee. I dont see how the patent would help it--its the use made of the patent that make sit notable. DGG 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Spam advertisement. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I noticed that the deletion header had been deleted by an anonymours user this morning. Can we get the article protected until the debate is finished? Gomez2002 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• 82.70.155.252 added the header, you completed the nomination, and then 82.70.155.252 deleted the header. If you completed the nomination on behalf of an anonymous user, then you should edit the nomination header to indicate that. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I didn't delete the header, I had some trouble resurrecting the header however. I didn't make the nomination on behalf of an anonymous user. Gomez2002 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (and cleanup): This is a pretty well-known website, one of the first of its genre. Lots of references in independent news articles [3]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:43Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, article needs rewriting from sources such as these FindArticle results. Heck, the site is almost notable for the URL alone ... before they added the hyphen. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a fairly notable site for anyone in TechSupport. meshach 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Meshach above. Also, "expertsexchange". Lankiveil 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Strong keep This site is notable as the first knowledge market on the web. There is no doubt that it influenced many other projects. I think it is very important to keep it, because otherwise, Wikipedia will be a poor source of information about knowledge markets. Alex Kosorukoff 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconcidering your vote

I have updated the article, added sources for many of the statements, and included more information about Experts Exchange there. I would like to ask people who voted a delete here, to check the article again and see if they still vote for its deletion.

Thank you. huji—TALK 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Change to keep Good improvementGomez2002 09:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) huji—TALK 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Call for speedy close as a nominator's keep is the equivalent of a withdrawn nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I was the other objector - it still needs more reliable sources, but that can be handled with a tag. keep. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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.