Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gossipreport.com
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 No consensus John Vandenberg (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gossipreport.com
Contested PROD, a likely non-notable website, although sourced, smells very spamy to me. Mr Senseless (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment-Could you help me understand what needs to change on that page to be "noable"? And I'm not sure what "smells very spamy" refers to? Are you flagging the site because you believe it's not a real website with tens of thousands of users? Look at Alexa, look at the references I added to the site, look at the site itself. I looked at a dozen other social networking sites on wikipedia and they all had basically the same information that I included on this page. Thanks for your help. Mak62555 08:51, 31 January 2008
- Delete Of all the independent sources cited, the site does not receive "significant" coverage in any of them, as required by WP:N. Every website, notable and not notable, has an Alexa ranking. Not one journalist or author has written something about this site that would establish its notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- CommentGossipReport.com is innovative and significant because it is breaking new territory in the collection of social history. It may seem trivial to some, however the long term implications of being a reverse of Myspace could have a huge impact on society. A site where you don't control the totality of your online persona is significant and gaining in significance on a daily basis. This site is growing at such a fast rate to pass it off as insignificant, especially in light of the other social networking sites that are still considered viable entities on Wiki and to even delete this site from that list seems unreasonable. Gossipreport.com is fully CAN-SPAM compliant, is fully funded, and is an up and coming entity. The site has had more than 5 million hits since the appearance on the Dr Phil Show and I will agree that all sites have a ranking on Alexa, a ranking as one of the top 50,000 sites in the US recently and 900% growth is significant. Gossipreport.com is backed by significant funding and is not some garage created site held together by duct tape and bailing wire that may be gone tomorrow. GossipReport.com deserves to be a Wiki entry.
-
- Comment
http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=6968948
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070717/NEWS/707170381/1004
http://www.ehow.com/how_2184477_use-gossip-report-gossipreportcom.html
http://trends.vuaw.com/gossipreport.com-1200963463.html
http://www.digg.com/people/GossipReport_com_You_Might_Already_Be_a_Part_of_It
http://www.wwaytv3.com/video/gossip_web_site_debuts_in_wilmington_legal_questions_surface/07
http://www.wwaytv3.com/what_do_you_think_about_wilmingtons_new_gossip_website
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080131/NEWS/801310334
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak62555 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid that none of those links give "significant coverage" to this site. Corpx (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is this the moderation policy of Wikipedia, to speak in general, ambiguous, subjective terms; "Spamy", "significant coverage", "notable", "sketchy", etc.?
"Significant coverage" (By Wikipedia definition) means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. There is more than a half dozen sources listed above that address the subject directly in detail.
I can not find any Wikipedia inclusion definition of "Spamy". I can reiterate the comment posted above that GossipReport.com is CAN-SPAM compliant.
As far as "Sketchy", I also can't find any Wikipedia inclusion definition for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak62555 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Mak62555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak Keep, after investigating several sources in the article. Not all links are reliable. Examples of reliable sources are the StarNewsOnline articles. Others are crap and should be removed per WP:SOURCES. Dekisugi (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- CommentKeep - This website is entirely viable and belongs on Wikipedia. The sources listed are almost all news sources, either television or newspaper. Being featured on a nationally televised show such as Dr. Phil lends tremendous credibility. The vetting system in place for the Dr. Phil show alone ensures credibility. News coverage by reliable sources is clearly exhibited. What even remotely makes this site worth deletion? Keep - Keep - Keep NoSeNada (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)NoSeNada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaslate (talk • contribs)
-
- Two Comments: First of all, CAN-SPAM compliancy has nothing to do with Wikipedia articles. CAN-SPAM is a US Federal Government act intended to reduce unsolicited email. Spam for the purposes of Wikipedia is an article that is written either blatently as an advertisement, or is written subjectively about a company and/ or its products. Additionally just because a website is featured on Dr. Phil does not automatically make it notable. In what context did Dr. Phil feature Gossipreport.com? Mr Senseless (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (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.
