Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MakeUseOf

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. High Alexa ranks and Facebook likes are not evidence of notability. Insufficient coverage by reliable source on the contrary is strong evidence of not being notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MakeUseOf

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

Non-notable entity. Nothing significant about this. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become blog directory. 1000s of blogs website happens every day. Just another one. Similar to The Next Web and Yourstory. Written to promote company or product nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree that this article covers a non-notable subject. The website is listed at 814 Alexa Global Ranking and has a variety of sources listed on the article. Other similar properties like Engadget have thier own Wikipedia articles because of high traffic and notability and the one for Make Use Of is no different. The page should be updated and additional sources added as per the cleanup tags added last month but the article should not be deleted. --Drmotley (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Rank is not a criteria for Notability. this website is used to create WikiSpan in massive amount as misleading source of Media coverage. where it is just the form of Churnalism. Articles written here are highly questionable in nature. Written by either affiliate writer or company person. References of such website or even having a article for such website make a wikipedia place for high spam problems. Light2021 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to be argumentative. I am clearly not suggesting that every website should have a Wikipedia article, but a high ranking, along with high readership, high Facebook likes (which is actually a measure of success), suggests notability and makes the page not worth deletion. As I stated before, cleanup needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of the page - which should be relatively easy, but a long standing technology website with high traffic is notable. Could you clarify the term "Wikispan". With regards to Churnalism - I think its doubtful you have even visited the website as they don't even have news coverage. Having viewed your user contributions you seem to have a desire to remove all technology journalism sites from Wikipedia. --Drmotley (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence for notability--minor notices such as every technology firm gets as a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly notable enough. There's much coverage on it, it has over 400.000 likes on facebook and the site is very popular. --Fixuture (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook Likes? Seriously? Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes. That is not even a creteria for any kind of notability. Light2021 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Yes, seriously - I think such a high number of likes is a very clear indication of notability. It's not the only thing that I named here though. Not sure what you mean by "Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes". --Fixuture (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply mean any random object or thing or people or company can make facebook page. You can generate as much as like you want, organic, paid or simply a likes trick. or as per real Logic can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says Facebook like even a considering point of notability. I will Believe! Links or Website such as these are source of Abundance of Spam or junk in Wikipedia these days. Any company or people are using them as source of Media coverage or notability, wherein such source itself are made to promote things and nothing else. Where there are no proof of credible journalism for such website. Merely popular or being visited by thousands of visitors, Alexa rank, Twitter Followers, or high degree of article creation in a website does not make anything notable. As per guidelines. Light2021 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable blog lacking significant RS coverage. Being named "one of the 'Top 100 Undiscovered Websites' in 2007" is a dubious honour. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Created by WP:SPA with probable WP:COI. Facebook likes is not a measure of notability. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (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.