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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlogUpp[edit]

BlogUpp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the sources are not sufficient for notability & the article is promotional DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability per WP:GNG WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Author comment: I added the article originally. There are currently provided a number of mentioning sources including CNET, TheNextWeb and a published book. If one does a Google search for "BlogUpp" it will result in a couple of millions of results. That is notable as per my understanding. There have been noticed lately a number of initiatives and changes at Wikipedia to encourage new contributions. Deletions of this nature don't seem to go in line with that strategy. Sorry to know that and hope the deletion to be reconsidered.Ibjennyjenny (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page was reviewed and accepted by Anne Delong as part of the Articles for creation process last April. I hope she is able to participate in this discussion. Note: Going through a formal review process like AFC in no way exempts pages from being nominated for deletion or being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The listed book and one other book I found merely mentioned BlogUpp. Nowhere near WP:SIGCOV in the books. As for the millions of web hits, that is a disadvantage in determining notability in this case because it is very difficult to wade through to find the truly independent sources that are giving significant coverage to this topic. Although not required, it would help a lot if the proponents of keeping this would pro-actively search for and find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this topic and put them on the article's talk page if they are not being used as a reference. Significant coverage is generally more than a paragraph or "capsule review." Independent excludes material that is provided by the publisher or largely based on material provided by the publisher (i.e. the "about this product" summaries you find on many stores and free-software-download web sites are largely based on publisher-provided content and are therefore not independent). Reliable sources exclude most blogs, discussion boards, and other "anyone can contribute" content ("news blogs" are allowed). If such sources are provided quickly, perhaps this AFD can be ended early with a result of "Snow keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: At least one editor with an apparent conflict of interest has edited the article recently. I have undone two of those edits for being at least borderline-promotional and kept one that was merely updating existing information without coming across as promotional. I have added ((connected contributor)) to the article's talk page and put a COI-related note on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A warning sign that a web site is not notable include content that is mostly the utmost routine trivialities for any such site: what servers it is housed on the signup & authentication procedures and different levels of service, that it uses RSS, that it links with the major social web services, that it has multiple special interest blogs and a directory, and so on. These or some of these can be appropriate content as a small part of an article, but if that's all there is to say... DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While it's true that there are a lot of hits on Google, the numbers are inflated by several things: (1) Google thinks you don't know how to spell "up" and included "blog up" results (2) BlogUpp seems to have its name all over every site that has used its service as well as (3) it's free, so numerous download sites have it on their list. Also, the majority of the mentions of BlogUpp are on blog posts (not surprisingly). On the other hand, because there are so many of these blog mentions, it's hard to sort out any legitimate coverage. However, there is "Blogging by Million, Earn by Millions: How the Young Savvies Earn Millions, "Is adv.blogupp.com a fake site ?", "Automate your blog promotion with BlogUpp", "Blogging tips", "101 FREE Ways To Promote Your Blog", "[1]", "BlogUpp.com – Get Free Adverts for Your Blog" —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Insider Note: Dear Wikipedians,
  

It's great to know Wikipedia has such dedicated contributors.

Turns out I'm the one davidwr refers herein as COI editor. Besides backing a blog supporting company, I'm a curator myself of our blogger community and the blog network. Hence understand the efforts you are making to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia. Bravo to you all, really.

In retrospect, I'm grateful in the first place to Ibjennyjenny for submitting the initial article. Being aware of it, contributed myself when there was a logo change and internal company updates. As a trustworthy go to destination of verified information, thought Wikipedia should be the place I should mention those updates firsthand.

Apologies if that doesn't meet the norms here. According to them, I'm also not in a position to bring more arguments on current subject. Hence if considered necessary by Wikipedia veterans, I'll conform to the consequences of the nomination and thank you all for your time.

Respectfully,

Valer Batcu (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valer Batcu, and thanks for declaring your COI. Updating a company logo seems like a legitimate action for someone from a company, since it involves no opinion, but "insider" information is not appropriate in any article, since articles are supposed to be a summary of published information about a topic. However, each article has a talk page, and if you find a source you think may be useful, or find inaccurate information in the article, you can discuss it there and if neutral editors agree they may make the changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BlogUpp seems like an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. Wikipedia articles are governed by community agreed upon criteria. They are generally deleted or kept based on whether substantial coverage in reliable independent sources exists. While this subject has been mentioned it does not appear to have received substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, books or from other reliable independent sources. So I recommend Delete at this point in time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not appear that BlogUpp meets the standards of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The closest thing to a meaningful writeup is the one in CNET, but that is from 2008. The CNET item gives a better explanation of what BlogUpp actually does than the current Wikipedia article. As DGG observes, the inclusion of trivial details about the service actually makes the article less plausible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.