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. Nakon 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcatalog[edit]

Blogcatalog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete NN blogging site with no reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've done some cleanup work on the article, and advised the author on how to show notability through proper sources. As the article stans it is not adequately sourced and does not assert notability, specifically it fails WP:ORG. Unless proper sources showing notability are forthcoming the article should be deleted. Gwernol 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Because blog catalog is essentially a website its notability is better argued from a WP: web perspective. Notwithstanding that From the WP:Org perspective organizations that are on a national or international scale are generally Notable. I have seen notability argued elsewhere based on size and scale of membership.--Kdgoodman (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is not worthy then wikipedia is somehow failing - or it's moderators are vandals. Actually I should not use that strong of a language as I am sure it is inadvertant but the influince of blogcatalog is evident to any one who looks around. That's my opinion Kevin Goodman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you read our policies on assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. On your substantive point, please note that your opinion that Blogcatalog is notable is not enough. As has been pointed out to you on at least two previous occasions, you need to meet the notability criteria laid out in WP:ORG. These standards have been established by the Wikipedia community and all articles are held to this standard. Thanks, Gwernol 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to note that it is here because I was suprise that it wasnt listed - though I seen there had been two attempts to do so. I understand the matter of credibility but I would hate for this matter to rest only in my hands and the under impartial. Give it seven days - make it a stub. But I am not going to use wikipedia if this is not worthy because this deserves reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • A day wiser – this comment was not meant to substantiate the topic but to clear myself as ‘promoting’and is one reason I was 'Touchy'.--Kdgoodman (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have five days before this AfD debate concludes. If Blogcatalog is as notable as you contend, it should be easy to find independent sources to show its notability in that time. Google and other search engines are extremely good at finding mentions of companies in th press, you might want to start there. Gwernol 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep this. If notability can't be established this isn't a failing of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, or a vehicle for advertising, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who would read this article would be researching social media and blogs of which there are only – maybe thirty platforms and one of which is blog-catalog. I believe notability is achieved – read elsewhere. To say that “Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, or a vehicle for advertising, etc” is highly suggestive. It is neither insignificant for its area nor is it an advertisement.--74.130.99.201 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Given the wee state and relative unimportance of the Technorati and MyBlogLog articles, this seems much overblown, though I don't believe it's completely undeserving. The original author's colorful assertions notwithstanding, this appears to be a reasonably large site in its field, serving its own members reliably. It is clearly a secondary player; perhaps the information could be added to one of the existing articles. However, given the other articles mentioned above, I don't think this fails the guidelines - or rather, I think this is one of those cases where the guidelines might not be applied firmly for best advantage. Note that the MyBlogLog article prominently lists the Google and Alexa ratings, incidentally. Hey, it's a blogger thing. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to ignore the guidelines doesn't seem compelling to me. Its only evidence that those articles need to be looked at.--Crossmr (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, of course there are articles on Technorati and MyBlogLog. I am comparing their content to the content here, as one does with birds of a feather. (Edited to remove my snippy tone - what was that about?) - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In AFD articles have to stand on their own merit. There are millions of articles on wikipedia and comparing one article to another during AfD isn't really a compelling argument since all kinds of things can slip through the cracks.--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As you like. I will maintain my Keep vote, then, and you can freely disregard my comparisons to the other articles. Nothing there changes my position or the thrust of my point, in any case. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a discussion, not a vote, and "votes" that maintain a position that is at odds with policy don't count for very much Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gwernol - Your reference to Wikipedia policies is well taken. My complaint is not against individuals or you. But more at how quickly moderators act, If I had not contested the original delete, how long would it have taken? I do believe that the extent of ‘Notability’ is being somewhat presumed after reading Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. It is suggested that http://mashable.com is not notable and that it needs to be something as significant as “The New York Times’ – I disagree but will keep looking. The link to the press release is something I included because it was a specific source for something (I don’t remember what) and was not meant to create notability but to convey a specific facts. It would be nice to get contributions instead of immediate threats of elimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  I am user 74.130.99.201, I apologize for not being fluent with the technology and the etiquette. I still feel as though this debate represents something larger. I will not express it here as I do not know if this is the appropriate place for it or how much it really has to do with this 'Subject'. Thank you for showing me how to sign hopefully this is looking better--Kdgoodman (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Secondary sources are not adequate to satisfy WP:WEB / WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines very carefully and cannot find anything that substantiates this – in fact the policy is the vice. A primary source by definition comes from the source it’s self – presumably the press release was from Blogcatalog and therefore a primary source. In fact ‘secondary sources’ are mandated by Wikipedia for establishing Notability as a matter of credibility. --Kdgoodman (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only coverage I found in reliable sources is either trivial, or reprinted press releases [1] [2] [3] -- pb30<talk> 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of yet I have not crossed any kind of references that seem to come from traditional media. That is not the sole criteria of Wikipedia’s Notability policy which demands – any one of three criteria conditions -. My opinion is that some of the references qualify as condition three. Also note that the intent of those references was to illustrate particular facts. Please remember that those who would read this article would be researching social media and blogs of which there are only – maybe thirty platforms and one of which is blog-catalog. User darkgreen has my respects for personally researching the matter.--Kdgoodman (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is time we stopped requiring traditional media. We will becoming increasing stuck in the 20th century. The sources are appropriate to the subject DGG (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would consider anything on the Alexa top 500 to be notable (and Alexa as an RS), but this doesn't qualify. Maybe there's something else out there which is nontraditional but reliable, but until I see it, I'll go for deletion. Matchups (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogcatalog.com does rank in the top five hundred sites for the US at 478! 475 for Canada, and 607 for the UK on Alexa.--74.130.99.201 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I finally got Alexa to load. According to this, "Blogcatalog.com has a traffic rank of: 181,421" If you have different information, please provide a link to it. Matchups (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very wierd - this comes right from doing an analysis on alexa (overall traffic rating is 1,421)and at the bottom of the page it tells you traffic ranking specific to different countries (US 478)and that is the information I posted http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/blogcatalog.com--74.130.99.201 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • actually I just looked at your link and it is telling the very same information - I don't know how you are geting 181,421 as it is 1,421 and if you go to the bottom of the page you see it has a traffic ranking of being in the top five hundred for the US, Canada, Malaysia, 291 for india and 607 for the UK--74.130.99.201 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely strange. I am getting all kinds of weird stuff when I look at the page. But I did finally see the same numbers as you. I am not sure if I think that a rank of 1,421 and barely within 500 in U.S.A. confers notability, so I will revert to an abstention. Matchups (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having revisited some of the references I can see they are not that great. Searches have yielded some credible mentions in major media sites such as ABC but these are trivial. I am amazed that there was not greater media significance but I have learned that Blogcatalog despite being founded in 2004 has really only been a social networking site for about ten months.

However – blog catalog has seen a meteoric rise in the following months as demonstrated by Alexa and is the 478 most visited site in the US, 475 most visited site in Canada. As for media references - clearly there is an interpretation of guidelines as it can be argued that the reference to Mashable meets notability guidelines. 1. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:  Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) In these considerations we might consider looking at ‘cumulative’ evidence. There is not any dominate mainstream media coverage – the fact that it is mentioned on well over a thousand WebPages is significant evidence of notability. Blogcatalog is also referenced in a few books http://books.google.com/books?q=blogcatalog&btnG=Search+Books%20I But my contention is not to rereference this – the debate should be about the topic and not the article as Wikipedia is about collaboration. The Final argument for notability is that it is of International scope with only 25% of its members being from the U.S. – Alexa does a fine analysis – And notability guidelines for organizations presumes national and international organizations are notable. A US fortune 500 company would probably be notable for being just that. You are about to remove a website that has become the 478th most visited site in the US. This is clearly not a perfect argument and I doubt it changes any predispositions. The subject was attempted before me and the evidence of notability and growing notability is clear whether it is construed and accepted within Wikipedia guidelines – though by opinion it does meet guidelines. I doubt the article is accepted but hope this attempt does not bias it as another person will probably attempt it.--Kdgoodman (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Blogcatalog was the feature story in Techcrunch, yesterday January 29th--74.130.99.201 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the world is moving away from newspapers and magazines, which are Wikipedia's traditional reliable sources, to media that are solely web-based. Sooner or later we are going to have to realize that new media are sufficiently reliable for our purpose. There is a multitude of sites totally independent of Blogcatalog that are talking about it. Google found about 300,000 hits outside of the Blogcatalog.com domain. Yes, I know that ghits don't count for much, but it should count for something in evaluating this article. Alexa shows that its daily reach has grown about 50% in the last two months.[4] It is worldwide - almost 3/4 of its users come from outside the U.S. Its traffic rank is in the top 500 in four countries, including the U.S., and is 601 in the U.K. More than 3400 sites link to it. It is notable. If our guidelines don't allow us to recognize its notability, then our guidelines need to be modernized (or maybe ignore the guidelines in detail, while following their intent). Sbowers3 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (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.