Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Work Helper

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 February 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work Helper

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

Non-notable website. Can find no overage in Independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [1] Ridernyc (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please, read paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to establish notability? Ridernyc (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. None of the eight sources are independent and reliable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete per Dhooper383 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC). Social Work is a global profession, with over 760 schools of Social Work and approximately 700,000 social workers in the US alone, yet wikipedia is not reflective of that fact in listing social work resources. Notoriety is also based on the resources used by a profession. Socialworkhelper is a US based site, and has been listed in social work directories around the world which has been proofed in the references. The Social Work authority sites are notable when referencing social work resources. To dismiss social work references by social work authority sites provides a bias against the profession.[reply]
Delete It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote something that doesn't have significant secondary sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just simply can't see how this meets, in any way, the correspondent web content notability guideline. It seems to me more like a personal project that has not been reviewed by any of the web content-dedicated high quality websites we already know. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note No one stated that it was wikipedia responsibility to promote anything. I stated that it would be biased to dismiss sources used by the profession. "High quality websites we already know" is not the standard specified in the notability guidelines. If you are going to reference notability, you should actually read what it says. If labeled as no inherent notability, it must be noted the following:

"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites."

This site has been referenced as a project that no one cares about, but its an educational tool that is currently ranked 150,543 in the US and 1,160,994 World Wide not bad for educational website for an unpopular profession. The fact that it has been noticed by other independent sources meets the standard under the notability guidelines. Deciding whether the independent sources are notable is not within your purview to decide especially when they meet the test of an independent source.Dhooper383 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (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.