Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComoAnda

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ComoAnda

• View more discussion on proposed deletion here: User_talk:Cymsdale#AfD_on_ComoAnda
• Note: Please do not base the site's notability on Alexa Traffic Ranking. ComoAnda has a largely Spanish speaking audience which most likely does not utilize the Alexa toolbar which is in English.--Oceanrythm 15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I am the author for this page and also developer of ComoAnda. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for deleteing this tag earlier. It was simply an misunderstanding of protocol. This site has been sited as not compliant with WP:WEB. ComoAnda meets requirements for Criterion 3 of WP:WEB - content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. A9.com, a well know opensearch aggregator, utilizes and distributes ComoAnda search content. A9. Article was edited, explaining ComoAnda's involvement in opensearch(A9), after the proposed deletion comments were made. --Oceanrythm 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for proposed deletion but detagged by the author, this article is about a website that does not appear to meet and of the criteria suggested at WP:WEB—delete. JeremyA 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 880,420. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advert. --Cymsdale 10:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• First, I'm on board with not using Alexa rank of 880K as evidence of anything other than how worthless Alexa can be as a sole judgement criteria at times. That said.... Being aggregated by A9 doesn't in itself confer notability I don't think, under a reasonable interpretation of WP:WEB. (Do all 299 other sites have articles here? Do they defend notability using that criterion alone?) I agree that a wikilawyering interpretation might, by some major stretching, confer it, but we should do what is reasonable. I'd like to see some other evidence of notability such as citations by other clearly notable sites, writeups in published material, researchers citing it, or at least something more than 4 pages of hits in Google (I may not have searched effectively, it is true) before I'd change my comment from delete, but for now, that's what it is. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Referencing WP:WEB:

Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]

When asking if ComoAnda meets criterion 3, you'd need to ask: Is A9.com well known and independent of the creators of ComoAnda? I believe - yes. And if 'yes' to the first question... Is ComoAnda's content distributed via A9? Fact - yes.

I am not clear on how this would be some 'major stretching' or wikilawyering of the interpretation of WP:WEB

Should criterion 3 be removed from the site notability guidelines? Or should web sites be required to meet 2 of 3 criterion to qualify? Or can web sites meet any three of criterias, and still not be considered notable? --Oceanrythm 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the current guidelines say, but thanks for repeating them for the benefit of others. There are two counters to them in this case, in my view.

• First: These are guidelines, not rules. A site that does not meet any of them can nevertheless be found notable, and a site that some claim meets all of them can nevertheless be found not notable. That is, meeting them is not a free pass, it's a guide to how to proceed in deciding what to do.
• Second: In my view the problem is with what "distributed" means in this context. I think most people would agree that, for example, Google does not "distribute" the sites you can look up there... it merely lets you find them. Yet, it fits the above definition with some stretching. Even the Google news pages aren't making the sites they find stories from notable merely by making the stories findable. We have debated other aggregators before, such as Keenspot's keenspace, and the conclusion has been in the past that merely being syndicated or distributed by keenspace is not sufficient to make a site (webcomic in that case) notable. With 300 sites aggregated by A9, it will take some convincing to show that is not the case here. Yes, A9 is well known and independent of the site (and notable!), but that's not relevant to whether its notability is transitive to this site.

Finally, if this site truly is notable, it will be easy to find other evidence of it, evidence such as I and others outlined, citations by others, influences, references, writeups, articles, and so forth. The fact that you repeatedly cite the WEB guidelines (here and on talk pages elsewhere), instead of doing that, is why I feel it gives the appearance of wikilawyering, which will tend to leave a bad impression with others popping in here to express their opinions. You'd much rather they came in here, got interested in whether the article is or isn't notable, found some other reason to dig around, and enhanced the article or this debate with additional information and notability instead of concluding that your apparent wikilawyering is proof of non notability (by someone looking for adverts or to increase notability by USING wikipedia to enhance inward links... not saying that's you but we see that a lot), and moved on. IMHO anyway. So, consider finding those other evidences and I will be falling all over myself to change my current feeling, as I am inclusionist!!! I hope that helps. I am guessing you may not be very experienced here since you haven't set up your user page and haven't been using formatting much in your replies so I took the liberty of formatting your words above.++Lar: t/c 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

really good feedback. and yes, i do have much to learn about wikipedia. --Oceanrythm 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it's trivial distribution per footnote 7. Hiding talk 20:46, 3 March 2006 (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.