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 Keep, nominator changed his opinion after new sources were added. Fram (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consumating[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, prod was removed with a claim that the external links satisfied that, but they do not. Ifctv is 404, techcrunch and geekentertainmnet are blogs and do not pass WP:V and can't be used to establish notability. The code project is not independent of the subject and can't be used to establish notability. The only thing presented in the external links which is reliable is the wired link for which there is a grand total of 140 words on consumating. This is hardly significant coverage. Crossmr (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - this is a spam article. Could be 'speedied', IMO. PKT (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Wired article alone denotes the notability of Consumating, listing the number of users at 10,000, while List of social networking websites has this at 21,000, although I do not know the source. We have several networking websites with less users than this. Alexa lists it as breaking into the Top 10,000 websites in 2006, although it has fallen since then. We also have an article on Ben Brown (blogger). This article however does need some work. The359 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither user count nor alexa ranking satisfy WP:WEB, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability also isn't inherited.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is well made spam. -- Emana (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does no one know how to use a search engine? I'll see you a WIRED and raise you a WSJ. Plus a Red Herring, Violet Blue, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While WSJ is reliable, red herring clearly isn't as the author tag points to [1] with the wonderful keyword of blog. Sfgate looks fine though and appears to satisfy requirements. These need to be worked in to the article though.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you demonstrate that the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Between wired, sfgate and wsj, thats enough to establish notability anyway. Unfortunately this article doesn't even say who wrote it and links to a generic staff listing which could have changed drastically since 2005. With no way to verify the author of the material, there is no way to meet that criterion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - By definition, "staff" is people who work for the organization. Half the stuff in my hometown newspaper is attributed to "staff" or no-one at all. Also, all of the stories at Red Herring appear in blog format now. It's no different than CNet in that respect. The actual blog posts all have the term "/blogs/" in the URL, so this is not likely a post to their blog, anyway. Additionally, TechCrunch is a professional blog with serious partners and backing and as reliable a source for this sector as any. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not just staff though, that's specifically blog staff. The link seems to be down anyway. As far as techcrunch being reliable, that isn't the thinking over here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Techblogs.--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (Is there any other staff list?) That isn't exactly a groundswell of opinion you're pointing to. Blueboar said "well, except for experts" and "blogs are primarily opinion anyway", and DGG said "blogs who can be shown to be authorities can be reliable". Since Techcrunch is an incorporated company and not just some guy throwing his thoughts on blogspot (like I used to), I'm not sure what argument can be used to separate it from other online-only properties like CNet. It's quite ironic, though, as we are discussing the reliability of a source which is probably a larger business than 75% of the daily newspapers in the US. In any case, we agree on one thing: we already have more than enough to establish the notability of Consumating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - That exception for self-published sources (which a blog generally is) is already in WP:V. if it can be demonstrated the person is a recognized expert on the subject (and published by a reliable source as such) then his self-published work can be used in that field. If anyone wants to use a blog as a source they have to either demonstrate it meets that or that its a blog only in name, when in actuality its an article with editorial oversight hiding behind the blog name for marketing. While its known that there are reliable sources which run those kinds of blogs, the onus is on the person who wants to use it to demonstrate that editorial oversight is there. if there are professional blogs we're always going to consider reliable and usable in establishing notability (there is an issue in notability establishing that getting covered in something print is significantly more notable than an online professional blog) those need to be addressed on the reliable sources noticeboard and maybe a subsection so that people know which ones have been investigated and found to meet wikipedia standards.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Since you seem determined to wikilawyer this:
        
        Red Herring home page, 8/10/05 (showing the article in question)
        
        Red Herring blog page, 8/10/05 (showing no posts since June)
        
        June 2005 blog post indicating the site was concluding its "experiment in blogging" for the time being. Unless you have more substantive reasons than your own wish to reject them out of hand, I believe I have demonstrated the necessary bona fides for this particular source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Its hardly trivial as this is a recurring debate with a lot of internet related topics, also accusations of wikilawyering can be see as an assumption of bad faith, uncivil, or even a personal attack, and referencing it as such was completely unnecessary in making your point. The site currently has a blog section, and the author is attributed to a a simple link of /blogs/staff (which is frustratingly still not working). Without an in depth investigation there was no obvious way for me to know that the site discontinued blogs at some point and this article was produced during that time. in AfD people constantly try to use unreliable blogs for sources and asking that someone provide evidence that it meets our standards is not an unreasonable request since there isn't (too my knowledge) a page like I described above which lists sites which have been checked and verified to meet WP:V even though they are presented as blogs.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I apologize for getting testy. I posted while I was on deadline in RL. --Dhartung | Talk 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) - Wouldn't a blog acknowledged and supported by a reliable news source been seen as a more reliable source than any other blog on the internet? The359 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not necessarily. What makes sources reliable is the fact that they are known for fact checking and editorial oversight. Some places let their staff put whatever they want in a blog and only get involved if something they've written causes a big to do. Other places treat blog postings just like articles and only call them blog in name. They're edited and fact checked just the same. The latter are the only useful ones to wikipedia. A blog which isn't fact checked or edited by a third party is a self-published source, regardless of where its hosted. Unless the person self-publishing it is a recognized expert in the field (which may or may not need to be demonstrated) they don't pass WP:V. In terms of establishing notability we also have to note the difference between a paper medium and an electronic one. Both make their money through content generation, however blogs typically do it solely with ads, while newspapers and magazines do it with a combination of ads and sale of the medium itself. In addition to that paper is a limited medium and what they choose to print is far more notable than what appears on a blog who is capable of generating tons of content with no real care for how notable the subject of their blog really is, since the cost of hard drive space is minimal and their bandwidth is recouped through advertising. When it comes to anything with blog on it, we need the site where its hosted to indicate that they stand behind the content as they would any article on the site.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire for caution, particularly in BLP situations and less vitally in notability, but the idea that "anything with blog on it" needs to follow some sort of authorial chain of evidence is a bit ridiculous, as is the concept that the only blogs that matter are those of name experts. Red Herring and TechCrunch are primary publications in this field, which doesn't lend itself to print coverage. It is the reputation of these sources in the field that we need to consider, not technicalities such as the use or non-use of the word blog, which is a method of publication. --Dhartung | Talk 10:40, 11 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.