Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shpoonkle

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shpoonkle[edit]

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

This website is relatively new and not very notable to have a Wikipedia article. Its Facebook page has less than 80 fans, so hardly anyone uses the website or even know about it or its founder. Almost all of the information in this article was added by the founder himself, User:Robgrantn, with no reliable sources. He even tried to create a Wikipedia article about himself and he is nowhere close to being notable enough for that, being just a 21-year-old law student from New York. The founder is my elementary school classmate and had the audacity of unfriending me on Facebook when I tried to help him improve the article. I know he worked hard with adding all that information, but the website is just not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. This article belongs more on a Law or Website Wiki like this one, not an encyclopedia. This is not the place to promote a new company. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination, yet another non-notable web-based startup. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE

Objectively, a former classmate who was "unfriended" on Facebook shouldn't qualify as the person recommending deletion of an article. This seems like a malicious attack over a bruised ego rather than an unbiased review of content.

For the record, I submitted most of the content for the information on the page not Robert Niznik. If the site needs work, than I am happy to add or change what is required. The page had been approved and was growing and improving until your ego got bruised.

This 21 year old, Robert Niznik was in the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, and the Economist. He was most recently interviewed by NBC News about the PROCESS he has employed via vie Shpoonkle. The site is about promoting advocacy and the condition of the Legal Environment today and not an advertisement. The site and service has been in over 600 renowned international publications in less than ninety days. To my knowledge the amount of fans you have on Facebook should not and is not a criteria of notability. The website has over 2000 registered users and has thousands of page visits a day which is considered substantial.

The article has citations from notable sources, its objective about the services offered, and also follows Wikipedia's guidelines. You actually wrote to Robert (see email below) telling him not to worry that the page just needed some clean up and would be fine. So because this person is no longer a Facebook friend your using your position with Wikipedia to have this article deleted? Not only is not ethical and a misuse of the fiduciary responsibilities Wikipedia has entrusted in you it is just plain wrong. The purpose of the article was not promotion of the company but to educate of a process and service that is FREE and trying to help people.

This is the message you sent Robert Niznik on June 8th 2011 at 8:25:

___________________________________________________

Winson Thai June 8 at 8:25pm Report

The article will NOT be deleted just because of the template. I put it there so you and the people who work for your company will know that it still needs a lot of work (heck, you did not even include a link to the site at the bottom of the page). Just keep improving the page and you can remove the template. No worries.

_____________________________________________________________

We made the changes you suggested and then you marked it for deletion because he didn't want to be your Facebook Friend anymore? I am asking the Wikipedia community to help me stop people like this from using their personal agendas in this forum/site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierceenigma (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Fierceenigma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who is "we" in the above sentences? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - obnoxiously promotional article that positively reeks of COI and promotional intent; but subject matter has gotten some real-world attention. Needs a cleansing to remove the Augean stables of press releases, self-serving blather from site's founder, etc.; but none of that is reason to delete. (I have nothing printable to say about the notion of measuring notability by the number of Facebook friends a website has!!!!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now with a comment on references: 1-Press Release, 2-WSJ article, 3-Unrelated to subject specifically, 4-Press Release, 5-Unrelated to subject specifically, 6-Unrelated to subject specifically, 7-Blog, 8-Blog, 9-Blog, 10-Same ref as #2, 11-ABA, 12-ABA, 13-mentioned in passing, 14-mentioned in passing, 15-Press Release. There are currently 15 references in the article, but the only ones that I would argue could be used to establish notability are 2, 11, and 12. Seems a bit weak, but I could see it going either way. Looking for more info before !voting myself. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in the Wall Street Journal and the ABA Journal is enough to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. I went through and removed some of the fluff, it looks like it is fully cited now. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the 12 references as currently exist in the article:
1. "Building eBay for Lawyers"; Wall Street Journal
  - Without being able to see the whole article, this still appears to meet the criteria for a suitable source with significant coverage
2. "How Much Do Lawyers Charge?"; Lawyers.com
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - merely confirms average hourly cost for legal fees
3. "Is Law School a Losing Game?"; NY Times
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - confirms number of legal jobs lost
4. "U.S. firms outsource legal services to India"; NY Times
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - confirms outsourcing of jobs
5. "Shpoonkle By Any Other Name" Simplejustice blog
  - A blog, with a criminal defence lawyer's personal opinion. I'd be more inclined towards accepting this as a source if he had an article at Wikipedia, but there is none.
6. "The Shpoonkle-ization of a Legal Profession"; solopracticeuniversity
  - Another blog, from someone with no Wikipedia article, at a "university" with no evidence that it is notable, or that it is accedited with anywhere
7. "Thoughts On Shpoonkle"; Nontradlaw
  - A blog from a person who has no article here
8. The same as reference 1 (Wall Steet Journal)
  - See point 1
9. "As Law Student Readies Reverse Auction Site..."; ABA Journal
  - As the journal of the American Bar Association this should be a suitable source, but I notice that there is no author given (it's shown as "Intern", whereas most of the ABA Journal's articles have named authors. We have no idea what the professional status of the writer is - in theory, it could even be the creator of the Shpoonkle. Overall, I would feel uneasy using this particular article on ABAJ as a reliable, independent source
10. "More Than a Quirky Name"; ABA Journal
  - I would definitely count this as a reliable reference (a named staffer) - although only 9 of the 17 sentences are actually about Shpoonkle, leading me to wonder if it meets the "significant coverage" requirements
11. "Why BigLaw Associates Should Listen to Me"; BitterLawyer
  - A blog, with one minor mention of the subject: "As I like to say: BigLaw, meet Shpoonkle"
12. "New sites, apps that might be worth consuming"; Chicago Tribune
  - Reliable source, very minor mention: "Shpoonkle.com. Hire lawyers by reverse auction, meaning they bid for your business."

There appears to be significant coverage in one reliable source, insignificant coverage in others, and no-mentions in other sources. I do not see the significant coverage in sources (plural) as required by the notability guidelines, and so I feel I must recommend deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I combined references 1 and 8; so now 8 in the above list is missing and 9-12 are moved up. —teb728 t c 08:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I count the Wall Street Journal reference and both ABA Journal references as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The second ABAJ reference is really all about Shoonkle; even the three paragraphs about the competitor site contrast that site with Shpoonkle. I think it unlikely that the anonymous author of the first ABAJ reference is Niznik himself; at least that article doesn’t have the neutrality problem of Niznik’s friends writing here. —teb728 t c 08:41, 19 June 2011 (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.