Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDigitel

Add links
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. I have discarded the new/spa/nonpolicy based votes and all the experienced contributors boted delete Spartaz Humbug! 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheDigitel

[edit]
TheDigitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the criteria in WP:GNG and specifically Wikipedia:Notability (web). There is no sustained coverage of TheDigitel.com in any independent, third party sources. The article, which is obviously written as an advertisement, has a lot of links, but none show that TheDigitel.com is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Not to be confused with Digitel Solutions, Ltd. www.digitelsolutions.co.uk, Digital Telecommunications Philippines (DIGITEL)} www.digitel.ph and various others (disambiguation). Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" and have added multiple independent media sources to the references of TheDigitel.com including TV news, online magazine, business print, and newspaper print. --Ken E. H. (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sources to this thread
--Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are examples of trivial, incidental and routine mention. For example, four sentences at the end of a NYT article on another subject. It's not what Wikipedia:Notability is based on. Also, can you clarify whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest on this subject? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article as it stands reads like an advert, but the website is now a reasonably long-standard news source and product of Charleson, and other southern cities, with advertisers having paid money on the site. Thus it is established as an independent news source on the web, alongside many other similar websites which have similar wikipedia entries. Looks to me like it could just do with being trimmed down and written more succinctly. Geofftech (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any any evidence that it is a long standing news source? And the fact that some web site has advertising on it doesn't mean it should have an article about it. See Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. If you know of other articles like this which lack independent coverage in reliable sources, they should be deleted too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not lack independent coverage from reliable sources, see above.--Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument for including this page is that it needs mentioning in, at the very least, the local media sections for the South Carolina cities of Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and Beaufort. Having a singular page frees the need to repeatedly describe the source and it's hybrid reporting environment. Would agree this posts needs cleanup to hone in on the role and collaborative aspects of the site, I'll do some work soon and update back here. --Ken E. H. (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Since TheDigitel sites themselves serve as an independent 3rd party news source to their respective geographic regions. Therefore, finding another independent 3rd party source that provides "sustained coverage" of TheDigitel seems like a guideline that does not fit well with the function of this, or any small town, news reporting entity. TheDigitel is notable and significant in that it let's any authenticated user contribute new stories and edit existing ones. I do appreciate the need to verify articles are not for an insignificant websites and their claims can be proven. Given that context, Dennis Bratland, how can that be proven to your satisfaction? Paul B Reynolds (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable news media are mentioned by other sources all the time. Non-notable media are ignored. That is precisely how you differentiate between a reputable source and a lone crank in his basement making a web site. If you read WP:Notability and WP:GNG, you'll see that there is no assumption that any category of subjects is automatically notable. There is no assumption that every local news medium will have an article on Wikipedia. The standard is the same for all subjects. Allowing users to contribute content is in no way special. Hundreds of thousands of forums and blogs and social media do the same thing. See WP:SPS.

How satisfy the guidelines is explained in the articles I just linked to, and in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Read those pages and if there are parts of those policies you don't understand, ask a question on the talk page or here. Whether I'm satisfied or not is not of prime concern. My opinion isn't any more important than yours or than anybody else's. What matters is whether the subject meets or does not meet the criteria. Ultimately, an administrator decides whether to delete the page, and that can be appealed if you want input from more editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "trivial" and "no way special" are assertions of opinion. Particularly when the subject being scrutinized is of much greater notability relative to the geography of the individual judging that notability. User contributed and editable content in itself may not be unique, but the way in which TheDigitel combines this feature with hyper-local news aggregation and presentation is certainly unique and notable. It seems the original article was too self promotional in tone which has derailed into an extremely subjective valuation. Perhaps Ken E. H.'s edits will change the deletion status for this page. Paul B Reynolds (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the argument is that TheDigitel is notable for both it's workflow and as a news source? These seem to reflect mention on the technical note.
I'm not certain on how to find external citations for regional media either. Other Charleston ones (WAZS-LP, WMMP-TV, WTAT, WSCI_(FM), Island_Eye_News, WSSX, among many more) have no references. Seem all these be marked for deletion/citation discussion as well. --JonaLeon (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The crux, I think, is whether one accepts that the PBS and NYT coverage is sufficient or not. Instructions on how to cite sources are at Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a regional media source of note and seems worth of mention in those communities' wiki pages and it's also almost notable for innovation in the web journalism scene for citizen journalism efforts and advertising innovation. Certainly more notable than the dozens of run of the mill radio station's listed in Charleston at the very least. --JonaLeon (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other employees of The Digitel posting here, your contributions are welcome, but it is preferable to disclose your conflict of interest when dealing with a subject like this, as explained in WP:AVOIDCOI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merely existing is not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheDigitel&oldid=1069480226"