Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woophy

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, default to keep.-Wafulz (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woophy

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. The wall street journal source is unavailable for me to read so I can't evaluate its content, but both the BBC link and the guardian link qualify as trivial sources. They do not offer significant coverage of the subject as required. From WP:NOTE "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive The guardian article is hardly significant, and even it acknowledges the site is small. From WEB: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site This is nothing more than a brief summary of the content of the site. In fact its an extremely short usage guide at best. Notability requires multiple non-trivial sources so at the very least we need to evaluate the wall street journal coverage to see what it is, and find another source of non-trivial significant coverage. Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Photo sharing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be nothing more than a nn Web 2.0 site and possibly just advertising. Unless somebody comes up with notability, i'd suggest speedy per G11. Firestorm (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The WSJ article is non-trivial coverage (I'm a subscriber; it's 16 paragraphs entirely devoted to the site, including the history of how it was started). There's also a Dutch source of several paragraphs, [1] and a shorter German one in a computer magazine [2]. Others that show up in the GNews search are trivial; the ones that might look non-trivial (Forbes and the German one) are both reprints of PR newswire/press releases about a competition they're holding. Find sources: Woophy — news, books, scholar. cab (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  If its a reprint of a press release, its not independent of the subject. 16 paragraphs at the WSJ? That sounds notable, but I'd still prefer something we can see. We give it a pass now, and someone wants to double check in 6 months because there still really hasn't been anything else added and you're not around to read it for us? That doesn't sit well with me. I can't read either of the other two provided references, but given the length of the german one, I'd need to see the content to decide what its saying to decide if its trivial. Same with the dutch one. Its not much longer, but its getting to a better length depending on what it actually says. Actually with a google search I question the german one, as the text is showing up on a few pages [3], which unfortunately since I can't read it makes me think it could be a press release.--Crossmr (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The WSJ is available in libraries. That's sufficient public availability for RSs. There is no requirement that a source be free, or even available on the internet at all. Forbes does not uncritically repeat press releases. If they thing one is quotable, it makes it a RSs.

DGG (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say it wasn't an RS, I said it wasn't independent of the subject and isn't usable as citation, its 404 anyway, but its very clearly a press release, part of their prnewswire section. I don't know what their criteria is for being listed there but it sounds like just a feed of press releases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 7 January 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.