Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Nous (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 no consensus‎. It does not seem like a consensus is likely to develop. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion after a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Nous[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

No evidence that any of the sources are both independent and reliable. It really doesn't matter what the subject says about itself and no matter how many sources mention it or quote its contributor, that still doesn't make for notability. This feels like one person's promotion of (their own?) web-site Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Websites. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The WP:REFBOMBing is a strong indication that there are no references that have all three of the qualities we require. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I increased (and then, following the advice of another Wikipedia editor, decreased somewhat) the number of references so as to address the concern raised in the earlier (2021) deletion discussion. I don't think what I've engaged in is "refbombing." The refbombing page warns against citing esteemed sources in vague ways so as to create the illusion of notability. I didn't do that. Rather, I directly quote the New York Times calling Daily Nous "a popular philosophy news website" and cite Inside Higher Ed and The Baffler similarly. The references currently numbered 8-18 are specifically identified as examples of citations to Daily Nous in popular and academic writing, so as to substantiate the specific claims made in the text about how Daily Nous is used by others.

Let me add here something I said in another discussion, in case it is useful. I had previously included among the references a Quillette article that was mainly about a Daily Nous discussion. I see that this reference was removed by an editor in June because Quillette is not considered reliable; however, Quillette was not being cited to establish any particular fact; rather, it was cited as an example of an article about Daily Nous. I would argue for reinserting that reference.

More generally, as someone who doesn't do much on Wikipedia, I'll admit that I may be unfamiliar with some of its norms. But I would appreciate it if others refrained from making unsavory assumptions about the character of my actions . I'm putting forward a good faith effort to follow the rules and standards here in regard to a subject that I think is appropriate for a Wikipedia page. If I'm mistaken about that, so be it. But I'm not trying to trick anyone with misleading descriptions or illegitimate or too many references. Justin Weinberg (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided don't show that the subject passes WP:NCORP, the relevant notability guideline. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite a large number of references, they all appear to be either passing mentions or primary sources. I couldn't access a few of the paywalled sources; however, these are all supporting the claim that Daily Nous has been cited by writers and media outlets... and by scholars, which strongly implies that the references contain only passing mentions to the website. Happy to be corrected by anyone with access the these sources; until then, this fails GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...however, these are all supporting the claim that Daily Nous has been cited by writers and media outlets... and by scholars, which strongly implies that the references contain only passing mentions to the website." That's correct. Those references (currently numbered 8-18) are only there to support the claim about how material at Daily Nous is used by others. With the exception of #11, they are not substantially about Daily Nous. Justin Weinberg (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. As the creator of the article (and, judging by your username, the editor of the blog), do you know of any additional references which discuss the blog in the level of detail required by our notability policy? WJ94 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm the editor of Daily Nous. I haven't checked for new articles lately, but there's this: https://archive.ph/20230503004909/https://quillette.com/2023/05/02/philosophys-gender-taboo-takes-cete/ and this: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html .

There may also be some academic works that do so but it may take me a few days to get the chance to look through them Justin Weinberg (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 126 of Dan Demetriou, "Learning All the Wrong Lessons," in T. Allan Hillman & Tully Borland (eds.), Dissident Philosophers: Voices Against the Political Current of the Academy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 123-140 (2022), Demetriou (a philosophy professor) calls Daily Nous "a major philosophy industry blog." Roscopcoaltrain (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might as well recycle what I said the last time around: It is a high-profile website within the philosophy community (and is even cited in the more formal literature), but finding secondary sources about it and its history might be difficult. The academic citations to it, the mentions the news [1][2], and its use in 189 pages here all suggest that we should say something about it. In other words, it's plausible that a reader will come across the name of the website and want to know what kind of website it is, and we'd be serving the public interest if we had a few lines on the topic. Is there a viable merge target? University of South Carolina#Media seems like an odd fit, but not impossible. Category:Philosophy blogs doesn't have a main article, but if it did, this article could become a section in it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Wikipedia search results that XOR'easter provided show that the blog is useful as a source of philosopher obituaries and academic industry news, but as a subject it does not appear to be notable enough for an article. I would say this is one of many blogs that are well run and useful but not notable. I also tend to think of this in terms of WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia is not a directory of blogs, and there's nothing that makes this article more than a directory listing, nothing worth saying or reading about the article's subject. Biogeographist (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This site is subject-specific notable to folks interested in academic philosophy. I would further submit for consideration that the notability criteria are perhaps being here applied with unusual stringency because the article was created – albeit, entirely transparently – by its editor. As far as I am concerned, however, WP:IAR trumps WP:WIKILAWYERING any day. The only people who find this will be people explicitly looking for it. (I have never met or communicated with the editor, nor have I ever published anything on the site except – I genuinely can't remember – perhaps to comment on someone else's contribution.) The number of mentions in major journalistic outlets and peer-reviewed journals establishes SSN even if no major publication has devoted a feature to the existence of the site. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: said: This site is subject-specific notable to folks interested in academic philosophy. Well, that's easily refuted: I'm very interested in academic philosophy, and I don't see how Daily Nous passes the relevant SNGs; furthermore, there is no SNG "to folks interested in academic philosophy"—WP:ORG or WP:WEB would be the relevant SNGs. The number of mentions in major journalistic outlets and peer-reviewed journals establishes SSN: no, according to the guidelines, quantity of mentions is not the criterion. And I don't think the accusation of wikilawyering is helpful here: show us some qualifying coverage of the subject or award for the subject and I'll change my !vote; there's no "unusual stringency" here. Biogeographist (talk)

I guess I would just like to see this decision argued first in terms of the value (or the contrary) to potential readers and only second in terms of WP:ACRONYMs. (No disrespect to anyone involved, all of whom seem genuinely to be contributing to the discussion in good faith—only querying whether we are all starting with the right question.)

I take myself here to be echoing XOR'easter.

That said, this is not a hill upon which I care to die.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question; I don't currently see the value of it for readers. I think someone said it well in the previous deletion discussion: if we don't have good sources, what could we really say about the blog that its about page doesn't? Apparently nothing, but I'd be happy to see someone show otherwise if possible. Biogeographist (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything here is subject to deletion if not sourced, which is not the case on the site's "About" page. Likewise, any unflattering coverage could be expected to be reported here in a way that it probably would not on the site.

I'm not claiming this is a knock-down argument. At present, however, this article is just an overly sourced, innocuous stub. I stand by my vote in favor of leaving it be. It would be nice to be able to Wikilink to the article if the site were ever used as a source for other articles (which it probably already is). Also, if the site publishes anything independently worthy of coverage, it would be good to have a base from which to elaborate.

I've added a banner flagging it as created by someone with a close connection to the subject and also inviting criticism along this line on the talk page. That's where I would leave it.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we cite something on Daily Nous (which we conceivably might, per WP:SPS), we could link to an article here in ways that we can't link to an About page over there. We can also include negative information that their About page wouldn't (say, if a particular story they run draws a lot of controversy). And we can keep track of changing information in ways that they might not bother to, e.g., changes of editorship. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's a shame that there aren't more sources discussing the blog, but at this point there isn't much to support a full encyclopedia article. If there are sources available, an article could be made for Justin Weinberg himself and Daily Nous mentioned there, or it could be merged into University of South Carolina#Media per XOReaster. Are there any other possible merge locations? I think information on this somewhere would be useful for readers, even if it doesn't have its own standalone article. Shapeyness (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness I take this comment in good faith and don't mean to aim my reply at you specifically, but at this line of thinking in general: this weird sleight-of-hand we often do to try to find the most plausible redirect target when there really isn't anything reasonable is something we do for nonsense bureaucracy reasons and not out of good editorial sense. People are far more likely to be looking up Daily Nous than they are to be looking up Justin Weinberg. (Sorry @Justin Weinberg - but you'd agree, right?) Almost certainly no one will find themselves thinking "hm, what was that philosophy blog called, that one that's hosted by the University of South Carolina?" I'm all for condensing topics into one article where that's really the best way to handle them, but this ain't it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem asilvering. I get your point but I think I disagree. People are probably more likely to search for Daily Nous than Justin Weinberg yes (and definitely University of South Carolina media!), but those people are no less well-served by a redirect which takes them directly to a section that contains the information they're looking for in a broader article. Indeed, they may be better served. If, for example, searches for the Daily Nous were redirected to a section in an article on Justin Weinberg, now readers are no longer just getting a few sentences on how the Daily Nous is a popular and well-regarded philosophy blog with citations in and outside of academia, they are also getting some background information on the editor of that blog, his expertise and work etc. This could be included in this article, except for the fact that there is little information on the blog itself to include and the article would end up disproportionately leaning towards details about Weinberg himself. I would also like to disagree that this is all merely bureaucratic - how and where to present information is an ordinary editorial decision that all encyclopedias must make. And many encyclopedias do have "redirects" whose entries merely point readers to another broader subject. I don't see any problem doing the same here given the lack of information which could very easily be included elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no issue with redirects. It's redirects to the "smaller" topic (eg Weinberg) that I find bizarre. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned above in comments, this is a well-known source that we may well cite in Wikipedia articles, and it is helpful for readers to have an article, even a stub, to be wikilinked to. The references on the article clearly demonstrate notability in the normal (ie, non-wikipedia-specific) usage of the term; I doubt you'll find many people in academic philosophy who haven't heard of it. I don't find "not enough information for an encyclopedia article" to be a persuasive argument, since stubs exist both here and in traditional encyclopedias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar results indicate that it is cited in the academic literature and recognized as a place where discussions about the philosophy profession happen. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site is significant in academic philosophy, and its notability is evident in mentions across journalism and scholarly journals. as per WP:SPS Google Scholar recognizes it as a hub for philosophy discussions,1, 2 etc. Dcotos (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted in a first AFD two years ago but this time there is no Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above by Dcotos. It is a notable topic. Deletion is not appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2023 (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.