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. Evidence of this article's topic having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been presented during this discussion. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtAudio[edit]

ThoughtAudio (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)

This is not a notable website under criteria of the General notability guideline or the specific Notability (web) guideline. I have been unable to locate any non-trivial coverage of the website or it's producer in independent reliable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - TechReviewPro ranked ThoughtAudio 5th for accessing free audiobooks online and BestCompany rated them 14th among the best audiobooks companies of 2017. ThoughtAudio's rendition of The Assassination of Julius Caesar is a recommended resource by the curriculum management and standards-based system, NYLearns. This organization states: "ThoughtAudio.com is a producer and provider of free audio books featuring classic titles across a variety of genres. The audio books are professionally narrated works that you can listen to online or download to play offline." I have provided the above information with relevant links within the article, but will be happy to move that information to the discussion page, if necessary. ThoughtAudio is also a globally accessed site, including India and Russia as significant audiences. This is indicated by the Alexa link, also referenced within the article. ELApro (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a valiant effort to find sources, but none of them provide significant coverage that goes beyond simply describing the website. According to WP:NOT § Internet guides:

  "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." [emphasis in source]

  There do not appear to be any independent reliable sources that provide information needed to cover the site in an encyclopedic manner. TechReviewPro is not a reliable source, it is a personal blog (see disclosure). The BestCompany™ online review site is somewhat informative in highlighting the paltry number of titles ThoughtAudio offers relative to others in the field, but this is not the sort of information that buttresses a claim of notability. NYLearns offers only a bare-bones description of what the site offers.

  ThoughtAudio does not have enough impact or historical significance to be mentioned in the Audiobook article, much less to be the subject of its own encyclopedic article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I removed the statement "ThoughtAudio.com is an internet company" from the article lede,[1] because the site domain is not registered to a company. It is registered to Anita Scott personally,[2] who is identified on-wiki as the wife of the Michael Scott Gallegos mentioned in the article.[3] Noting that donations on the site go directly to Michael Scott Studios rather than to an account in the name of ThoughtAudio,[4] I surmise that there is no such entity, and that the website is a personal hobby. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have listed references and recommendations from the University of Cincinnati Libraries, Florida State Libraries, The Springer Learning Center & Library at Southwestern Christian University, TeachersFirst, under the not-for-profit, The Source for Learning, Inc., and from the curriculum management and standards-based system, NYLearns, in addition to praise for an individual rendition from LearnOutLoud. I have indicated and referenced that ThoughtAudio is serving a global audience. I have indicated and referenced that this is a resource for K-12 teachers, children and young adults, recommended by educational institutions. I must remind you that this is a small operation that is having a disproportionate impact on educational resources and that ThoughtAudio provides these audiobooks free of charge. I would plead that we work to improve the article rather than delete it. ELApro (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Setting aside that this is messily written, the article does seem to fail at WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB. The coverage is marginal, mostly in passing and/or not very independent/reliable. NYLearns review and recommendation doesn't seem like anything significant. Neither are any other minor endorsements; it is hard to say which are bought or pure PR. This is just a minor company doing minor stuff. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other delete !votes above my own. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since the article's nomination, the reflist has grown from 3 items to 11. Yes it is a small-ish website with only 94 audiobooks but I must disagree with other editors who say that it fails WP:NWEB. NWEB does not require a website to be "important" nor does it require a website to be famous. The only requirement is that the website is "noticed" and mentioned in other independent sources in a non-trivial manner. While it is debatable what qualifies as a "non-trivial" mention, it is undeniable that the website is mentioned in multiple independent sources (5,800 google results]... remember, the website is small, and has only 94 books so most of these are not itself). Also, this website is a not-for profit (its only products are offered for free); it's not the type of website that self-promotes or advertises. While the above !voters may argue that mentions such as "ThoughtAudio has classic works of literature and philosophy books available for download as free audio books" are trivial, considering what ThoughtAudio is, such a mention is actually appropriate... and I can't really imagine any other way this type of website is going to be mentioned... it's just not the type of thing that is going to win a prestigious award because no such awards exist. Looking at the contribution history of the editor who created this article, it is clear that he is independent of the website and that this article is not an advertisement. —CodeHydro 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that it is not worthless and is free, it has naturally attracted a number of links and mentions, but Google's initial estimate of the number of hits can be off by an order of magnitude. Concerning trivial mentions, I think "considering what ThoughtAudio is ... I can't really imagine any other way this type of website is going to be mentioned" is about right. For myself, I can't really imagine an article, pruned of puffery and fluff, that has any more substance than a directory entry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer:  There was a significant amount of Canvassing for this discussion on February 6. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2017 (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.