Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BeWelcome

AfDs for this article:

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

BeWelcome (  | 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)

Not notable per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng( TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Per WP:SNG -- Geysirhead ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng( TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng( TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic. Unbh ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng( TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng( TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen -- Geysirhead ( talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, trivial coverage only Unbh ( talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved ( talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article. Unbh ( talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability. Unbh ( talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902( https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved ( talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng( TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no notable coverage cited, only very brief passsing mentions and primary sources. It doesn't meet the criteria for a wikipedia article CT55555 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555: read WP:REPEAT-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument. Unbh ( talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa ( https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources. Unbh ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [ Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two. Unbh ( talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Subaculture (
talk • 
contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles. Unbh ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities ( 5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account... Unbh ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [1] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona ( talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @ Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

-- Geysirhead ( talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [2] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing ++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing ++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071928411"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BeWelcome

AfDs for this article:

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

BeWelcome (  | 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)

Not notable per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng( TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Per WP:SNG -- Geysirhead ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng( TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng( TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic. Unbh ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng( TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng( TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen -- Geysirhead ( talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, trivial coverage only Unbh ( talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved ( talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article. Unbh ( talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability. Unbh ( talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902( https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved ( talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng( TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no notable coverage cited, only very brief passsing mentions and primary sources. It doesn't meet the criteria for a wikipedia article CT55555 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555: read WP:REPEAT-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument. Unbh ( talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa ( https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources. Unbh ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [ Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two. Unbh ( talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Subaculture (
talk • 
contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles. Unbh ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities ( 5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account... Unbh ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [1] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona ( talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @ Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

-- Geysirhead ( talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [2] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing ++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing ++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071928411"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE