Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikirank.net (2nd nomination)

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. Guy makes a strong argument that the sourcing consists of "superficial referenciness", and I don't feel that the opposing argument overcomes this point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirank.net[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Renominating this in light of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles as in the previous AFD the first four keep !votes were all socks. If we exclude all of the references from the spamming group, are there any which demonstrate WP:NWEB is met? SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Mackensen, Power~enwiki, and Mardetanha: as the non-sock participants from before. SmartSE (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is spam, which is a bad start, but more to the point, while it has superficial referenciness, the sources are inevitably either affiliated, unreliable, or do not make substantial mention of the subject. Example: 10.1177/0165551511416065 is cited as a source for "WikiRank uses different important normalized measures [e.g.] text length" but the paper neither mentions wikirank nor cites its creators. The only papers that do cite it prominently are written by people associated with it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Guy's comment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an important project which has been cited independently. The flaws appear to be errors in the article, which is easily salvageable and should not be deleted because it's merely incorrect in places. EllenCT (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @EllenCT: of the five papers listed there, only two are independent citations. Whatsmore, they are citations of a paper, not coverage of this website, and only contain extremely scant commentary:
- 2020 perspective on “Scalable modelling and recommendation using wiki-based crowdsourced repositories:” Fairness, scalability, and real-time recommendationAdditionally, Lewoniewski et al. (2019) provide a multilingual ranking of Wikipediaarticles using quality and popularity assessment. The results show that the quality and popularity of a wiki-based article depend highly on the language.
- Information Quality Flaws in Wikipedia by Using Classical and Deep Learning ApproachesSince then, several classification approaches to tackle quality flaw prediction and IQ assessment in Wikipedia have been proposed [1,8,9,11–13,24,30,33,35]
- It doesn't come anywhere near to near to demonstrating that WP:NWEB is met. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per NWEB, please, "consider whether it has had any ... demonstrable effects on ... literature, science, or education." I am more than willing to make the case if you can't see it. How long, for example, have the authors been processing Wikipedia data in order to illustrate attractive open tasks on several language wikipedias? Have you researched their web hit volume? I am not a huge fan of their tool, as I consider their categories far too few. EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: The key word there is demonstrable - meaning that there are reliable sources demonstrating an effect. Where are they? SmartSE (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Keep. as before , but remove the refspam. Alternatively, , and preferred, , consider a move into WP space., DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I'm truly baffled by your previous rationale which you still seem to stand by Usage as the primary method of research in multiple scientific papers is a justification for notability - it doesn't appear to have any basis in policy. Further, what will be left if it the spammed references and the references which predate the website being created (!) are removed? DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC) SmartSE (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly stand by my previous rationale, and very strongly so: the basic WP:GNG is that something has substantial coverage in RSs, and significant use of a particular technical in multiple reliable journals is an ideal example of just that. But in this particular case, even if such use were clearly demonstrated, upon re-reading tonight the article, the publication, and the website, I think the material would be better rewritten for WP space, with a soft redirect, (I adjusted my repsonse to indicate this more clearly, and I therefore thank you for your comment.) DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam spam spam, it should have been deleted the first time Mardetanha (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 21:07, 6 August 2020 (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.