Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe (website)

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. The sources added by Bogger demonstrate notability. Cerebellum (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe (website)[edit]

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

non-notable website; someone removed the speedy because why? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. The website is not totally non-notable, but appears to be mentioned mainly in sources about its founder. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have added a number of references. Could you re-assess? Bogger (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. A couple of lines of sourced content in that article is sufficient. Joseph2302 15:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have added a number of references. Could you re-assess? Bogger (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notablility: Mentioned in 150+ other articles as a source. Employer of (semi-)notable people Dion Fanning, Tony Barrett, Ledley King. Clicking on reference with Joe.ie as a publisher should not go to Niall McGarry no more than clicking on a reference from The Sun should go to Rupert Murdock. Adding references today. Bogger (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything approaching meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web)? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is used as a source without explanation by newpapers, broadcasters and other news sites. On the first 3 pages alone of [this google search] which excludes joe.ie, joe.co.uk, Her.ie and Sportsjoe.ie, Joe.ie is cited by Newspapers:Irish Times, Evening Echo, Broadcasters:TV3 Ireland, Sunday Business Post, Other websites:Irish Central, and by its direct rivals DailyEdge.ie, BreakingNews.ie and The42.ie Bogger (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing being a reliable source (if we charitably suppose that it is such a thing), with something that has been written about ... which is what the notability guideline calls for, and which we also see in WP:GNG. That you can find weblinks pointing to it does not establish its notability. Still. Good luck with making the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, these are just quotes of things they've said, not in depth coverage about them, as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 18:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Article with in depth coverage about Joe.ie from the "paper of record" in which the founder is mentioned only in passing Bogger (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most interesting thing anyone can find to say about this purportedly notable site is "The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland upheld a complaint about an ad for Sprite featured on the site". Why has this not just been A7'd? ‑ Iridescent 22:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be wanting to take that question up with Adam9007, Iridescent - [1] - though see also User_talk:Adam9007#Notability_is_not_inherited and probably weep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, that is not relevant because A7 is not about notability. Adam9007 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly enough, I'm aware of what the deletion policy says. If you seriously think "hosted a Sprite advert" is a credible claim of importance and significance, I respectfully suggest that your opinions are so out of sync with Wikipedia policy and custom & practice that you should probably stay away from anything related to deletion. ‑ Iridescent 23:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I said "hosted a Sprite advert" is a claim of significance?????? What???? Where did I say that? Adam9007 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Bogger has more than established notability, which, to answer the nom's question, is why the speedy tag was removed-nom should check edit history before asking simpleton questions.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because edits after 6 November were viewable on the 6th November, Kintetsubuffalo. Do nyou go out of your way to be stupid, or does it come naturally. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who removed your speedy tag left the reason why in his edit summary. Those show up immediately, dipstick. Also, "you" has no "n" at the beginning, and questions end in question marks. Who's stupid after all?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember: "Founded by a notable person". That's a sure fire keep, isn't it, given Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability. But don't let a little thing like a notability guideline get in the way of your self-righteous sanctimony. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: You need to understand that removing a CSD tag is not the same as !voting keep on an AfD. It is not uncommon for someone to decline CSD and use another deletion process, or !vote delete if someone else takes it to AfD. Also, the notability guidelines do not apply to A7, as A7 actually states. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. Notability independent of McGarry not established by sources I can find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2016 (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.