Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techmare

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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techmare

Non-notable search engine, no reliable sources (the only independent source mentioning it is a blog entry listing Japanese job search engines). Was founded this month. It may become notable in the future; no bias against recreation once it is. Huon (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what particular source would you deem to be reliable. As the company is quite young, there have been no major articles in major periodicals or major blogs- as of yet. Based on your argument, I assume any young or niche company that does not imediately generate main stream press should not have an article on wikipedia. That seems somewhat hard to grasp. Can you give me an example of a reliable source that covers every young company that exists in this world. I suppose that Wikipedia is a tool to help us to find new information on new topics- sometimes, if not often, before they hit the press- or the Universites etc. Would you not agree? Also as an engineer living in Japan who has used this site- I find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to believe it is not notable, can you please provide a link to a similarly tech job focused search engine in Japanese, or any other language, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs)

I do not see any evidence presented for the above claim that this site is not notable.

It seems to be just an opinion based on no particular fact of any kind- that I am able to determine. The above phrase "Non-notable search engine" is not defined clearly. What does the author mean by this phase? Please define. I think this article is valid and should remain.

There's a very comprehensive policy on notability. See Wikipedia's notability policy --Ged UK (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails to meet inclusion criteria of WP:WEB from sources provided or any references I found in English. It is up to other users to search for sources in Japanese, since I cannot. gnfnrf (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see discussion section for this article-

Where does it state that blogs do not pass the reliability test? I notice that quite a few Wikipedia articles use techcrunch as a source- which is actually just a blog- albeit famous. And if fame is the most important criteria for a blog, then should we not eliminate newspapers with minor circulations- or perhaps periodicals that we do not agree with. E.G. too right wing- thus unreliable. Search Engine Journal is also more of a blog than a "newspaper" proper. If it is correct that blogs are not considered reliable sources- then it would seem that Wikipedia itself must be deleted- since so many article refer to blogs. In addition, media is changing, traditional corporate owned media is dying, and independently minded citizens and bloggers are growing in influence and respect- as is Wikipedia. And since Wikipedia itself is nothing more than a collaborative effort by individuals- that is-non-corporate identities- to make a valuable resource for everyone, how is it possible that it would reject the opinions of other socially created media like blogs?

User JackShinjuku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as (un-)reliable sources are discussed in this essay. As an obvious example of blogs' unreliability, I could create a blog and publish fictious negative information on Techmare (such as "Finds useful hits only on 10% of searches!"). That would obviously not suffice to add these made-up claims to the article.

Concerning the Search Engine Journal, while it's probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog. For example, it has a list of staff and a physical address. But that's completely irrelevant; whether Indeed.com (whose article cites the SEJ) is notable enough for an article is not the topic of this discussion, and whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant for the question at hand.

Finally, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and neither does it consider most other user-submitted content (such as other wikis) so. Huon (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that based on the comments above, the only way to have an indisputable conclusion as to whether a specific source was reliable, would be to have some sort of official and presumably countless list of "approved sources". Yet even if there was an attempt to make such a document- it is not at all clear how there could ever be a fair consensus as to what sites are reliable. For example among many of my associates- Fox News is considered completely unreliable as a news source. In fact it is often not considered a news source at all, yet for millions of Americans it is their primary source of news and information.

The author of the previous comment states- "while it's(Search Engine Journal) probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog..."

Is this not case and point- an individual judges a site to be reliable by it's appearance- and thus it is. (It seems also worth noting that the Search Engine Journal does not have an article on Wikipedia- despite it's presumed notability. Is it indeed notable?)

In lieu of such an officially sanctioned list, the argument is reduced to who thinks XYZ source is reliable or not. There are a myriad of opinions on which particular sources are reliable or not. And a source that would generally be considered highly reliable among a particular group of people, interest group or nation would be considered just the opposite by another group. It is interesting to note that the comments above suggest that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source- because it is user generated. If that is indeed the case, then what exactly is the point of this discussion. The logic seems to be almost self-defeating, at least in it's conclusion. No article that does not have a reliable source can be posted on a site that, according to the previously posted comment, is itself unreliable.

Overall the article contains information of sufficient merit and quality to continue. This is not to say that it could be improved in the future- as many other articles on Wikipedia could. But to argue for deletion of this article based on the aforementioned arguments would be arbitrary, subjective, unfair- and a detriment to the viability of Wikipedia as source of information.

User- JackShinjuku Oct.16 2008

Delete The top result in Google for Techmare is Wikirage followed by the Wikipedia article. It falls on the second page. Although, that alone would not make it non-notable, it doesn't vouch for the notability of this site. Can't find any mainstream media mentions or mentions in WP:RS. Mvjs Talking 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

As mentioned before, since mainstream media is dying, and alternative/community media is growing- it is illogical to use mainstream media as a bar for notability or lack of. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008

Delete - References are NOT about the org, they are about the concept. Misleading references. Delete as per WP:N, WP:V, WP:SPAM - DustyRain (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is a Japanese language site- not English- so naturally one would not find so much english media about. As one would not for fc2.com a top website here in Japan. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.47.239 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response While you are welcome to participate in the discussion as much as you wish, please restrict yourself to one summarized opinion (keep, delete, etc), so as not to confuse the closing admin. As for Japanese sources, you are welcome to provide sources that are not in English and add them to the article. However, the other restrictions on reliable sources still apply. That is a Wikipedia policy (stated at WP:SOURCES) which means that changing it requires much more than your opinion on one AfD. If you wish to change it, the discussion should start on the talk page there. gnfnrf (talk) 14:49, 18 October 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.