User talk:Gearhead4847

Welcome!

Hello, Gearhead4847, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Autoblopnik, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Autoblopnik

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Autoblopnik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Autoblopnik

The article Autoblopnik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability for this website. Google returns 83 hits, none of them independent with substantial coverage. The ones I thought might have coverage all turned out to be social media discussions. I speedied this a week ago when it was created. It was deleted, but then restored with a reprieve based on representations that the article would be improved to show notability. It isn't been.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Largo, wouldn't we have to delete pages on Sniff Petrol and Truth About Cars for similar reasons? The site Autoblopnik is a popular topic in the automotive industry and is considered significant in a narrow segment. It's too new to be cited in a dead-tree book, but that doesn't mean it hasn't generated significant interest. I suggest it be left in place, and let's see if the automotive community embraces it and searches for info. Gearhead4847 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You say it's popular. I looked around and didn't find the evidence that Wikipedia requires to make that determination. You're welcome to bring some to light if it exists. As for leaving it here and waiting to see if it meets the notability guidelines later—we don't do that. Articles aren't kept based on future expectations. See WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

The other two articles you mention are to be judged on their own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for perspectives on using one article's existence as justification for another. I don't know, perhaps they should be deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Okay, looking at the Wikpiedpia guidelines for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability... The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability... The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...."

I believe Autoblopnik.com meets these requirements. It has received coverage in several independent sources, including major car sites such as Jalopik, GM Authority, Autobytel, and MichiganRadio.org; major automotive forums including Bimmerpost, Allpar, VW Vortex, Jeepforum, and Tesla Motors Club; and numerous (though less significant) blogs and forums. It has been cited by Jack Baruth, editor of TTAC and contributor to Motor Trend and references to the site show up in comments posted to Autoblog, Jalopnik, and The Truth About Cars. And all of this is in addition to the social media discussions you cite (assuming you're talking about Gawker Media's Oppositelock, where the site is promoted by the owner and talked about by other readers).

Therefore, I believe the site meets the Wikipedia requirements for notability: It has received significant independent coverage and recognition in reliable sources independent of itself, and there is verifiable, objective evidence to support that. Though the citations in the article may not properly reflect this, the guidelines are clear that "poor... referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability," therefore instant improvements to the article should not be necessary. Rather, the article should be given time to be found by other Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject so they may continue to improve and evolve it.

Based on all that, I respectfully submit that the proposal of deletion should be removed. I believe I am allowed to do this myself, I'll wait a little while for discussion (assuming no one beats me to it).

Thanks for taking the time to read. Gearhead4847 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my deletion proposal, I didn't find significant coverage, only passing references. Forums aren't reliable sources: see WP:RS. My proposal wasn't based on poor referencing within the article: as I said, I did my own research. Again, as I said above, you and others are welcome to bring forth evidence of notability that I didn't find. It's true that the article doesn't have to be equipped with them right away, but list them here or, ideally, on the article's talk page, where others considering the deletion request will be likely to see them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Autoblopnik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Autoblopnik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoblopnik until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gearhead4847. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoblopnik.
Message added 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]