Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AsianAve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AsianAve
Social networking website of questionable notability. I believe it fails WP:WEB and would delete. Evb-wiki 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but source. Social networking website dating from before the term was invented, covered in NYT and WSJ among other reliable sources. Originally it was a "portal", only in the last few years has it moved to the social networking model. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless those sources are provided and determined to be notable non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- additional comment after having a look at these sources, the claim of notability is thin at best. We have one article in which AsianAve is not the subject of the article, but its parent company is (its mentioned, but not the subject), and the second article in which its sort of the focus but shares that focus with the ad-campaign. Note that the article isn't titled "AsianAvenue stops ad campaign", so the focus is actually put on the vodka company. In addition to that, no other sources have been provided to establish notability. That makes the most recent article, in which its not the subject, almost 7 years old. As far as notability goes it was barely a blip on the radar 7 years ago let alone now. I don't feel there has been any demonstration that this site is notable--Crossmr 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've heard of it, it goes back a few years. SolidPlaid 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I'm afraid I haven't seen the notability guideline which makes allowances for whether or not someone has heard of it. If this is notable please provide some sources to support that assertion.--Crossmr 13:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a digital version of Wall Street Journal I found online[1] OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's one, can we have another reliable source? Notability requires multiple ones.--Crossmr 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a digital version of Wall Street Journal I found online[1] OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I'm afraid I haven't seen the notability guideline which makes allowances for whether or not someone has heard of it. If this is notable please provide some sources to support that assertion.--Crossmr 13:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dhartung. I am not Asian but I have heard of this as well, probably from one of the WSJ or NYT sources he just mentioned. Burntsauce 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning doesn't making them available for any editor to independently check them.--Crossmr 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can independently go to your local library and check Lexis Nexis for yourself. Burntsauce 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- easily? I'm given no issue number, date, etc for which to check these alleged references. That is the problem. Vaguely claiming that something appeared in a reliable source at some point and using that as a basis for keeping something in an AfD debate doesn't exactly cut it. Thats exactly WHY it was placed on AfD, because those sources weren't provided. WP:V puts the burden of proof on the individual(s) who want the material kept or added. As such anyone feeling this should be kept because of those sources is required to provide them. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they have to provided in a usable format see WP:CITE for how to site offline sources.--Crossmr 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you actually go to the link that I pointed out, it says right on the top the date of publish, which is Monday, October 23, 2000. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I pointed out that's one, someone else has already pointed out the site isn't actually the focus of that article, the parent company is. Notability requires multiple sources and they must be the subject of it. What's required is a minimum of 2 reliable sources which make this site the subject of their writings.--Crossmr 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you actually go to the link that I pointed out, it says right on the top the date of publish, which is Monday, October 23, 2000. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- easily? I'm given no issue number, date, etc for which to check these alleged references. That is the problem. Vaguely claiming that something appeared in a reliable source at some point and using that as a basis for keeping something in an AfD debate doesn't exactly cut it. Thats exactly WHY it was placed on AfD, because those sources weren't provided. WP:V puts the burden of proof on the individual(s) who want the material kept or added. As such anyone feeling this should be kept because of those sources is required to provide them. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they have to provided in a usable format see WP:CITE for how to site offline sources.--Crossmr 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can independently go to your local library and check Lexis Nexis for yourself. Burntsauce 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning doesn't making them available for any editor to independently check them.--Crossmr 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If you look at the source, you may see that, while AsianAvenue is mentioned, the article is actually about Community Connect, AsianAve's parent company. --Evb-wiki 03:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment sources have to be cited, not just vaguely saying it was in the times, go find it for yourself.DGG (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Community Connect probably is notable enough, AsianAve doesn't appear to be. Note to Burntsauce: It is for those who seek to include content to cite it and verify it. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 28 September 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.
