Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDreamBooks (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

IDreamBooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletechanged article to meet NWEB guidelines This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.
  • This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing++ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."

    2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."

    3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."

    4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."

    5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."

    6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing++ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to ascertain whether an article contains sufficient "Independent Content" or whether it is based almost entirely on quotes/interviews or other sourcing from the company, you need to look at the entire article. It is not unusual for an article to summarise the interview in the lede, but that doesn't make it "Independent Content". Cherry picking individual sentences from the article in the manner you have done is either intentionally misleading or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what our guidelines require. HighKing++ 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing++ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.
    Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.
    Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing++ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rippon 2015 is a paper that was part of the "Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing Programs". This about page notes, "The Australasian Association of Writing Programs was established in 1996, with its first conference, a gathering of teachers and students of creative and professional writing, held at the University of Technology, Sydney and organised by Graham Williams and Dr Jan Hutchinson." I consider this source to be sufficiently reliable to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 11 December 2024 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IDreamBooks_(2nd_nomination)