User talk:Amnlat/drafts/PostItEasy

First feedback on draft

Hello, and well done for persevering with the drafting process. I know it's disheartening when articles get criticised or deleted, so full marks to you for sticking at it. I'm going to refer a lot to the page of policy on notability of websites so may I suggest that before you read on, you go and read through it thoroughly? It will help put what I'm saying in context.

OK, so one of the first paragraphs there says:

Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

Now at the moment, the article just describes the nature, appearance and services of the site, and according to the policy that's not enough. You need to find evidence that this particular website has a historical, social or technological significance that makes it unusual among similar websites. There must be many job-matching websites out there: what makes this one different from the rest? (NB: you must answer this as an objective observer, not as a fan, user, owner or designer of the site!!) Later the policy says:

Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.

Which is why your previous attempts were deleted. All they are (and this one is the same up to now) were a brief description plus a link. You need to add more content to make this article encyclopaedic. Next the policy looks at what does make a site notable:

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content^[1] is deemed notable based on the following criteria.
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.^[2] except for the following:
Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.^[3]

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.^[4]

The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;^[5] except for:
Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)
The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

So this tells you what needs to be in there to make the site notable. Any of these three would do (and more than one is better:)

A reliable, external source (eg CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, or even a smaller media outlet) describing, reviewing or commenting on the site.
A well known internet award having been won by the site
The site's content being picked up and redistributed by independent outlets.

I think the first two are more likely in this case. Has the site been the subject of radio or TV programmes? Has it been mentioned extensively in a book, or a magazine or newspaper article? Has it won a well-known internet award? If it has, and you can cite the source, do so and you have established notability. If it has not been mentioned by the media, or received such an award then it simply isn't notable, and has no place in the encyclopaedia.

So the task now is this: can you find independent sources that describe the site and what it does? By independent, I mean not you, and not the site itself. Or can you find an award it has won? If you can we can work them into ther text and I'll help you do this. If not, then the site is not notable and you need to find a new project.

Hope this helps and you don't mind this lengthy reply. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
^
Examples:
- The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
- The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

[1] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

[2] Examples:
The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

[4] The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[4] See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.

[5] Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]