Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centiare.com

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 Speedy delete, spam article created by banned user evading ban. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centiare.com

The site exists, but the references given to support its notability are not good. Two are internal, the Washington Post site doesn't mention the subject at all, the G4 site seems to be an anti-Wikipedia programme, not a description of the subject. This is a puzzle - is it a hoax, or an attempt to put a spanner in Wikipedia's works, or the real deal? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as it lacks any media coverage and is probable spam. Also, I think its been deleted before, see Talk:List_of_wikis#Centiare for some previous discussion on it. Wickethewok 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above - non notable Corpx 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam, the current scheme of indef-banned user MyWikiBiz. --Calton | Talk 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question- The article uses a "copy" of the site's logo Image:Centiare_logo.png, however it is tagged with pd-self, assuming because the uploader took a screenshot of the logo and png'ed it, rather than saving the original file. Isn't this still a copyrighted logo? If so, considering the implied fair use rationale, the logo should probably be deleted if this article is too. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retagged as {{non-free logo}}. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My own theory is "Freudian slip". --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, that's fine with me. Delete it. I was just looking over the Wikipedia list of wikis, and I noticed that none (?) of those that use the Semantic Mediawiki extension were included. (For more info, see Ontoworld.org.) I picked a couple that seemed to be the largest, and I began to research them. I noticed that Archiplanet is HUGE, and I noticed that Centiare came up on a few of my media searches. I don't know what Wickethewok is talking about "lacks any media coverage", and Kim dent brown must not have actually read the Washington Post article (Centiare mentioned in 20th paragraph), nor actually watched the G4 TV video (images from Centiare are shown liberally, and the guest mentions Centiare at the end of the interview). If the Washington Post and a national basic cable television broadcast are not notable coverage, I'm not sure what's going on here at Wikipedia. But, as I said, if deleting the article makes everyone sleep better at night, be my guest. P.S. I, like wizzard2k would like to learn more about how logos of other wikis get into Wikipedia, if there are such strict "fair use" interpretations? --SilkCow JamBuses 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Mr. Brand-new Editor: if the standard for sources includes "non-trivial", how does a mention in the 20th graf of a news story or a "mention" at the end of a minor cable-TV show qualify? I'll make it easy for you: they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that, Calton. The description at WP:CORP says, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. That's why I provided multiple sources -- the Washington Post and a nationally televised program on G4 TV. Now that you've piqued my interest, though, I'm discovering that the subject of the article has also been discussed in a widely disseminated podcast ("Hobson and Holst Report" yields 47,800 Google hits), thoroughly reviewed (not entirely positively, either) at Pandia ("Pandia Search" yields 82,800 Google hits), as well as written up by a leading developer of the Semantic Mediawiki software extension, Denny Vrandecic (36,400 Google hits). I'll look for your explanation of why these don't "count", either. If you have the time, please explain how the phrase "Centiare.com" yields over 11,000 Google hits, if the entity doesn't qualify as notable. To really sum this up, let's look at how many Google hits return for many of the sites found on the List of wikis:

Lostpedia (49 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
LyricWiki (54 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Memory Alpha (44 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
AboutUs.org (68 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Galbijim Wiki (59 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
WikiZnanie (95 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Jurispedia (86 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
Centiare.com (11,100 Google hits but (you say) does not merit an article in Wikipedia)

At what point does this become ludicrous? --SilkCow JamBuses 13:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I provided multiple sources - How odd: the adjective I actually used was "non-trivial". You might just as well have argued that the article subject isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple for all the relevance it has, Mr. Kohs.
As for the other sources you've scraped off the bottom of the barrel: Not acceptable (I mean, a podcast?), as the slightest glance at the reliable source guidelines would tell you if you had the slightest interest in intellectual honesty, Greg.
At what point does this become ludicrous? - Sometime after you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, perhaps. Argument in a nutshell: So?
Greg -- and it's painfully obvious that it's you, Gregory Kohs, the indefinitely banned User:MyWikiBiz and owner of the site in question -- given your constant sour-grapes reiteration of how you don't need Wikipedia, you sure expend a lot of Wikilawyering energy trying to get yourself listed here. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, unfortunately Google hits is not an indicator as to whether the article is noteworthy or not. Wikidan829 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of google hits aren't the end-all of a notability indicator. I've seen pages of google hits of nothing but garbage, passive mentioning, and proxyspam. What matters is the quality of the non-trivial coverage of the reliable sources covering the subject of the article. Its true, that a few of the links you mentioned deserve some review, but as it has been pointed out, just because other crap exists, doesn't mean more should. This debate is for discussing the merits of this article alone. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the article needs to be rewritten to be accurate. I didn't take a close look, but it did take actions to go against everything Wikipedia stands for; does it mention that? Unfortunately, Centiare is notable thanks to the Washington Post. Changed to Delete per non-notability. Wikidan829 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the "Washington Post" story is a single wire-service story pigging-backing off the actual story of Microsoft trying to buy good PR, and concerning Kohs' efforts to get on Wikipedia: "Centiare" doesn't even get mentioned at all until the 20th paragraph. This is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliable sources. And funny how no one else seems to have bothered to write about the this oh-so-notable venture in the last several months, hmm? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on a second look, the word "Centiare" doesn't even appear in that Washington Post article.. soo.. what's the issue here? I was thinking of MyWikiBiz. Wikidan829 14:52, 25 June 2007 (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.