252:. Having said that reliable sources are required, and I need to work on that now (note I have been busy with other things, and when I have edited BookRags it has been to remove inappropriate comments). A criticism that has been leveled is that this is just a spammy site. I have seen no evidence of this, but even if this is the case, as long as the subject is notable then even if it does spam it should still have an article. Also note that one of the main reasons I became interested in BookRags is because it had easy and cheap paid access to published material, that I could not find elsewhere. I will add more soon. Cheers
31:
313:
sources above are not notable and at least one of them, the webknowhow.net article, is a reprint of a press release. There is no evidence that educational institutions are using
Bookrags, merely a directory-style link from an Indiana department of Education website. And there is an interview with the founder from 2000. Sorry, this clearly does not meet notability guidelines.
221:, not being aware that one should employ independent sources. The question for AFD is whether any such sources exist. You have presented no evidence that you have actually looked to see whether this is the case. Your nomination is based solely upon the sources cited in the article. It is every editor's responsibility at AFD to
352:. How it treats it workers is irrelevant to whether it is notable enough. Note the reason why the info on it unethical pay was removed was because there was no source to back it up. Although this AFD may be closed with a delete, I suggest people disregard 24.71.104.147's comments, as they are clearly in bad faith. Cheers
173:
CONTINUOUS WIKISPAM. This time it appears a
Wikiepdia editor, who previously only edited or contributed to articles in a narrow field of science, has taken it upon his or herself to champion inclusion of this spammy site which had been deleted repeatedly. The only references in the article presented
340:
This article is certainly intended as spam on behalf of this company. This company is fairly unethical in its pay and its treatment of its workers; this is documented and was included in the entry, validating the page somewhat, and the fact that it was taken out confirms that the article only exists
312:
It has been deleted many times, perhaps not under this name but under bookrags.com or bookrags Inc. I remember that, and I see nothing had changed. I am not sure if the site is "spammy" but I do know it had to be removed several times from various other sections for spamming
Knowledge (XXG). The
303:. Hmmm I admit these look a bit weak, but please note none of them are blogs or personal reviews - that is all the semi-notable links I can find. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it is enough. Cheers
109:
163:
40:
246:
This reason I have recreated this article is because I believe it is notable. A search for literature guides in google will bring out BookRags in the top 20 results
301:
190:
368:
it seems pretty cut and dry-- it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sites like these are on the very edge and personally I think
237:. One editor in the last AFD discussion looked for sources xyrself, and cited an article about BookRags written in 2000 by Beth Bruno.
17:
427:
372:
is the problem, not the site. If that ever changes, this site could be resubmitted but until then it does not meet the guidelines.
247:
218:
214:
348:
carefully - this article IS NOT intended as spam. I wrote the article in good faith, but I do understand that it may not meet
277:
264:- in terms of my experience - my contributions and experience go well beyond science, including development of the articles
234:
250:
136:
131:
409:
280:
230:
65:
46:
140:
217:) is that xe is trying to create a good article on this subject from sources, but that xe has simply not chosen any
123:
408:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
186:
178:
182:
174:
by the editor are press releases and the about page, sources clearly not part of notability guidelines.
394:
376:
356:
353:
335:
317:
314:
307:
304:
256:
253:
241:
208:
87:
273:
105:
289:
269:
85:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
369:
365:
349:
345:
328:
200:
298:
387:
373:
204:
421:
391:
332:
295:
127:
292:
238:
78:
157:
249:, and Alexa data suggests that BookRags is continuing to move up the rankings
199:
The article at this title has only been deleted once, not "repeatedly", and a
108:. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see
364:
I disagree about bad faith of the article's originator, however in terms of
276:
and current involvement in two ArbCom cases by mentoring involved parties -
341:
to promote BookRags. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. IP - 24.71.104.147
291:, also education institutions starting to use BookRags as an external link
265:
119:
101:
93:
402:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
110:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/BookRags/2006-09-28
153:
149:
145:
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
412:). No further edits should be made to this page.
288:as mentioned there is the Q&A by Beth Bruno
8:
297:, news on development of Sonet Remixing
45:For an explanation of the process, see
300:, a comparison of online study guides
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
41:deletion review on 2009 February 22
24:
235:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion
203:interpretation of the actions of
29:
231:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
272:, being the main developer of
104:was nominated for deletion on
1:
227:looking for sources yourself
344:I suggest Anon IP you read
444:
395:18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
377:16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
357:15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
336:19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
318:11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
308:11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
257:10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
242:10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
88:23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
428:Pages at deletion review
405:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
170:Cavalcade of Wikispam
327:- does the site meet
193:) 2007-03-14 07:42:21
286:Independent sources
219:independent sources
270:Waldorf Education
195:
181:comment added by
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
435:
407:
194:
175:
161:
143:
83:
63:
33:
32:
26:
443:
442:
438:
437:
436:
434:
433:
432:
418:
417:
416:
410:deletion review
403:
223:do the research
176:
134:
118:
97:
79:
73:The result was
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
441:
439:
431:
430:
420:
419:
415:
414:
398:
397:
388:User:Metrofeed
380:
379:
359:
342:
338:
321:
320:
310:
283:
259:
244:
225:. This means
183:67.161.123.120
168:
167:
115:
114:
96:
91:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
440:
429:
426:
425:
423:
413:
411:
406:
400:
399:
396:
393:
389:
385:
382:
381:
378:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
337:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:
319:
316:
311:
309:
306:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
258:
255:
251:
248:
245:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
171:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
113:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
95:
92:
90:
89:
86:
84:
82:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
404:
401:
383:
361:
324:
285:
261:
226:
222:
211:
177:— Preceding
172:
169:
100:
80:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
201:good faith
106:2006-09-28
374:Metrofeed
354:Lethaniol
315:Seizer000
305:Lethaniol
254:Lethaniol
205:Lethaniol
422:Category
392:Ozzykhan
333:Ozzykhan
274:WP:ADOPT
266:Catch-22
233:and the
215:contribs
191:contribs
179:unsigned
164:View log
120:BookRags
102:BookRags
94:BookRags
362:Comment
325:Comment
262:Comment
239:Uncle G
137:protect
132:history
81:Prodego
384:Delete
370:WP:WEB
366:WP:WEB
350:WP:WEB
346:WP:AGF
329:WP:WEB
229:, per
141:delete
75:delete
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
386:per
331:? -
294:and
279:and
268:and
209:talk
187:talk
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
162:– (
424::
390:-
189:•
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
77:.
43:.
282:.
212:·
207:(
185:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
112:.
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.