Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telefact

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telefact

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

The subject of this vanity article is not notable, and its was created by employees[1] Chris Griswold 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Couldn't find anything to verify statements in the article on the Universtiy of Pittsburgh website; IMO violates WP:V. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... Student helplines arn't notable. ---J.S (t|c) 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. :) Dlohcierekim 03:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If they can't give us verfiable sources, forget it. Daniel Case 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable and kinda messy. Pinkstarmaci 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Telefact is a valuable part of the University of Pittsburgh. If other organizations have articles (see Friday Night Improvs or The Pitt News) this deserves one as well. Telefact is a nationally used service (NOT a campus help line) that attracts hundreds of callers per day and hundreds of thousands per year and is 100% unique in the services it offers. Completely unmatched nationwide.

Also, changes have been made and the sources we have have been cited. The article is no longer in violation of any citation policies. I don't see a reason why this article should be deleted.

-- Chris Szymansky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.59.222 (talk • contribs)

It's not notable. That's why. Daniel Case 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - Those subjects are both notable: Friday Nite Improvs was brought up for deletion and passed when notability was established using the standards for music, and The Pitt News has a circulation of 30,000 and a history of championing First Amendment issues. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete* This article does not advertise, it is a unique service, and the whole thing is not for profit. To call this a student "help line" is definitely a misnomer. This request for deletion stems from a petty grudge an established wikipedian has against someone or something at the service itself. Sources can be worked on, but deleting something that has logged 1.6 million calls in a 16 year history and is used by thousands in PA, OH, NY, NJ an elsewhere seems a bit unneccesary. -- Jeff Harr, 12:30 EST, 4 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.113 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - As I said on my talk page, this certainly is not personal; because I attended the University of Pittsburgh, I have used Telefact for a number of years in both Pittsbugh and New York City. Additionally, I also have been friends with a number of Telefact employees in years past. I do find Telefact useful, but I don't believe Telefact passes Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. If you can demonstrate that Telefact is notable enough to have an article, I think that's great. But that means you need to cite some sources. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment- Like I said above, sources are being worked on (two have been added). Telefact has been featured in at least three major Pittsburgh newspaper articles and was featured in a nationally broadcast special on NPR radio in the late 1990's. It has had over 1.6 million callers. I didn't expect it to be such an issue over something seemingly insignificant. However, since the issue has come up, it is being addressed. Notablity, even as addressed in the article that was linked above, is highly subjective. 1.6 million users of a service, national useage, and the fact that it is 100% unique in its scope (no other service nationwide is similar) justifies its notability. Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--Chris Szymansky

• • Source- Telefact NPR radio story: [2]
  • Source- Motley Fool (technology and investing website) news story that calls Telefact "wonderfully fun" and mentions it alongside popular search engine Ask Jeeves: [3]Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - A note about citations: The need is not to prove that it exists in this instance but to prove that it is notable. Additionally, student newspaper articles and blogs such as iheartpgh are not citable sources for this. --Chris Griswold 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment- Many more sources have been put up on the Telefact page. I point back to that "notability" page to make a couple more points: A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. Telefact is known outside a narrow interest group. 48 callers per hour and 1.6 million callers in 15 years spanning the whole country is proof of this. Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources NPR and Motley Fool, among newspapers and alumni magazine articles is sufficient external notice. As is 1.6 million callers. Lastly, I bring up the point "Wikipedia is not paper." Just because something is not household knowledge, it is ridiculous to preclude its inclusion in Wikipedia, especially when it is a unique service, passes external source tests, and has a wide base of users that span the country. Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky
• Delete not sources given from notable news sites, looks spammish and probably fails WP:CORP, and likely vanity per nom.--Andeh 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment- NPR not a notable news source? That's a new one. A major tech and business site, a magazine with nationwide readership? I will also be adding sources from major city newspapers. To say it fails any notability tests is laughable. It's not a vanity site either, hence the fact that the service is NOT promoted. The phone number is not even listed, for instance. The article covers only facts about the service and does not deal with excess promotion. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. And even here, a serivce with nationwide useage has every right to have a short article on Wikipedia. I'm just very disappointed because I feel like some more expereinced Wikipedia members are ignoring facts and policy just to remove a harmless article that is covers a unique service, contains verifiable information, and is not in any violation. 24.3.59.222 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky
    • None of those sources are very big media companies, there's even a link to a blog entry.--Andeh 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN. I hate articles that fails those, more even than articles that fail WP:MUSIC WilyD 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NPR itself is a valid source, but the requirements state that it must be non-trivial coverage. This is a tiny blurb, probably used as filler between stories. The Motley Fool barely mentions it; Telefact is not the subject of the article. None of the other external links are independent of the school that runs the service. Kafziel 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- It was a featured story on NPR. That is non-trivial coverage broadcast nationwide that Telefact was featured on. And how exactly is the article spam? It does not even feature the service's phone number. The service has seen no noticeable increase in calls since its been listed on Wikipedia, nor is that the goal of having an article here. The article is there simply as a contribution to Wikipedia (which seems to enjoy articles about things that are far more obscure than Telefact). Even if there was no press coverage, the 1.6 million calls the service has recieved proves its notability. That should not be overlooked. 24.3.59.222 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC) -Chris Szymansky

The service was mentioned in a tiny blurb on NPR, ten years ago. It's sandwiched between software tech support and wild ponies. That seems pretty trivial to me. I didn't say it was spam, just not notable. By the way, the number of calls a number receives (just like the number of hits a website receives) is not a factor in deciding notability. Kafziel 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that useage statistics do not prove notability. Surely if a website would recieve millions of hits, it would be notable. The same goes for this service. That said, I've put my points out there. I will add a few more sources (Pittsburgh newspapers) but as a whole, I'm done arguing over something so trivial.24.3.59.222 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky

Ha ha, "trivial". Exactly what I've been saying. ;)

But seriously, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing about whether hit count makes something notable. It's simply not part of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test to see why things like Alexa rankings and Google hits don't matter in any official way. Kafziel 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete : non notable, and as per "fails WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN". If it's part of U Pittsburgh, let's merge whatever is salvageable with that article. --Svartalf 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- It's not spam, but merging is fine with me. -Chris Szymansky
• Delete - Wikipedia is not Google. Stev0 21:31, 6 August 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.