Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trusted Opinion

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 Delete. Article fails notability. ChrisO 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trusted Opinion

Trusted Opinion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP and is borderline advertising - No reviews by media except some mentions in blog-ish type sites Corpx 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with above: The article avoids superlatives, and attempts to be a clear description of the service that the website provides. The website review cited is not a "mention in a blog-ish site", but a formal review by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. Michael Arrington is considered a highly influential figure in the Web 2.0 community, and is frequently cited in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, CNN, and many other leading newspapers and other publications. Please also note that his review was critical of the company in places, and a fair and honest assessment of the new technology leveraged by this site. tngreene 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • TechCrunch is a blog Corpx 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How does a review by an industry expert in a leading blog with readership exceeding many print publications not count as "reviews by media"? tngreene 21:20, 25 June 2007
  • As much readership as some blogs might get, they're not media. Readership doesnt grant a site media status Corpx 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: I don't think a single, brief mention in a blog (however well-known the blog is) gets this over the WP:CORP bar for me. Note that "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources" may be required to establish notability. Others may disagree, though. MastCell Talk 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficiently sourced and it is written like an advert. VanTucky 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Article Update--> Added another source (winner of the Israel Web Tour 2006), and changed language in the first paragraph that some may consider to sound "like an advert". Does this alleviate both concerns? tngreene Talk 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. It still does not meet the WP:Notability guideline for Companies. And if it is as notable as you purport, shouldn't it have 1. notable criticisms of it and its practices and 2. Have the overview written in much broader strokes, and less PR language created to market itself. Here's some examples of just some of the more explicitly advert-like language, "The benefit of this recommendation model is that it avoids commercial bias by always weighing friends’ opinions higher than those of a stranger." (this needs sourcing like mad), "TrustedOpinion.com is designed for "people discovery"...". The Israeli thing needs to be referenced in proper format, and it alone (blogs do not count for notability) is not nearly enough. A simple cleanup of the style of language now present is not enough. This article is written like an advert bc it provides no reliable, published independent sources and is just drunken cheerleading for Trusted Opinion and its services throughout the entire thing. VanTucky 20:57, 25 June 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.