Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbuzz

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. v/r - T P 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbuzz

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

This is an entirely unremarkable website - I'm a petrol head and I have never heard of it before. It has mostly been developed by a single purpose editor who, from his username, looks to have a close connection with the company i.e. is its founder. Other than one brief mention in The Guardian I can't find any significant references to support its notability. Biker Biker (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of carbuzz but have only added three contributions including the site to where I felt it would be useful.

You may not have heard of the website, but we've received a lot of press attention in the UK where are primary audience focus is. You can see some of it here - http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/press

It is also not a single editor site. We have 3 full time editors and 3 contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with more press comments, with links to their relevant Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two paragraph mention in The Guardian consists mostly of information provided by the company. Other claimed sources are to tech or advertising industry trade blogs and Website of the Week lists, and do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided by the company in the same way any press release does - Yes. Again, a comment from someone from America. There will be many publications that are famous in the UK that aren't known in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is rather dismissive of people from outside the UK and does you absolutely no favours. And why do you say "again"? I am a Brit. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am aware that The Guardian is an important newspaper. The problem still is independent and significant coverage. A brief blurb at the end of an unrelated story repeating information from the site founder is not really independent coverage, and is borderline on significant coverage. "Information provided by the company in the same way any press release does - Yes" - which is why that does not really constitute an independent source, no more than any press release would. It's pretty well established that getting your press releases distributed by others does not constitute independent coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a press release is to give a journalist background information about the company/news event and to alert them to it. The Guardian journalist has been alerted to the site by the press release, viewed it and given his own opinion on it. He liked it so decided to include it. Wikipedia says that "an independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective" - I fail to see how this is not independent coverage?

Likewise the other independent sources that covered the launch both fit into that category. The fact that they have detailed Wikipedia pages shows that they must be significant sources too. How many sources do you want before accepting it's significant coverage?

I can understand if you don't like the site or concept yourself, but that's beside the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Notability, especially the WP:GNG section. The only thing achieved by mentions in the press that are based on your press release is to establish that the website exists. They don't establish notability. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if it was a small blog just writing about the fact it had launched then it wouldn't establish notoriety, but these are independent, well known and trusted sources writing about the site. They wrote about it when it launched, but wouldn't have covered it if they didn't think it was newsworthy or a good product to show their readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states that...

"Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

If you read the references, then you will see that both press release information and personal, unibased, and spontaneous remarks about the site are present.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient independent sources to meet WP notability requirements. Web sites in particular need something more meaty that a couple of PR-oriented reviews. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at the links and did my own web search. The independent coverage essentially amounts to a few brief mentions that there's this new web site. I like these types of sites, so I hope it merits notability in the future, but I think it is short of it at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'd argue what level constitutes a necessary level of coverage. The site was featured in a number of well respected publications. That kind of media coverage cannot be bought. Yes it is PR related, but so is any film, book, fashion collection launch etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHCB (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 September 2011 (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.