Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Memo

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 and redirect to Joe Conason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Memo

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

No claims of significance or importance. Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non notable web content. The plethora of sources - which are not about The National Memo - does not support notability. Notability is not inherited from its contributors. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An online publication is notable if it is the subject of reliable source coverage about it. But that's not what the sources here are: with just two exceptions, the references are either the primary source web presences of its own contributors or glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people — and the two exceptions are its Alexa ranking and a Q&A interview with the publication's own founder in which he's talking about it himself. Which means that exactly zero of these are notability-supporting sources at all: it has to be the subject of a source, not just named in sources about other things, for that source to count as evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bearcat I suggest to check Google News and not just look at the references at the article. Disclosure - I contributed to this article as paid editor. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well how to evaluate notability, thanks. What I get on a Google News search is not coverage about The National Memo, but coverage of other things published by The National Memo. Which is, for the record, also not evidence of notability — a publication has to be the subject of coverage, not the creator of coverage of other things, to pass WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are unreliable for notability--mentions, publications by its own staff, and a self-serving interview with its founder. Bbarmadillo, If there's anything in GNews except their own postings, I can't find it. If you can, put it in the article. Isn't making an effective article what they paid you for? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG I am done with this article and will not contribute to it. You can check January 11 version for more references. There are also some additional references at suggested edits at the Talk page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is work by a well known American journalist and author. The publication passes the relevant notability criteria having been mentioned in third-party, reliable, major news media. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Conason, founder/editor. Concur that brief mentions presently on page do not suffice. I am not finding enough SIGCOV to support an independent page. I tried a couple of news searches that sometimes work for sourcing small publications, one on "The National Memo is" and the other on "The National Memo" + "founded by", hoping to find brief descriptions in WP:RS publications, but failed. Feel free to ping me to reconsider is anyone manages to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory Joe Conason is not the only contributor to this website, he is the editor-in-chief. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the sort of sourcing on The Federalist (website), or Mondoweiss. I'm not asking you to admire them, I'm only trying to help you understand the sort of sources that you might usefully bring to this discussion to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Disclosure: I am among those who have worked to remove trivial and promotional content from the page, and also (most unwillingly) engaged in extended discussion with the paid editor. I was in two minds about notability – it's not easy to find news about a news site, because a search tends to be flooded with results from the news site itself, as Bearcat has pointed out. I chose four major free-access English-language news sites which I believe to be among the most respected on both sides of the pond. I got:

one hit in the New York Times, about the death of Peter Kaplan (in use in the article), mentions Conason
two hits on the BBC, both "... writes the National Memo's Joe Conason"
three hits in The Guardian, one about the death of Peter Kaplan, mentions Conason "who is now editor-in-chief of the political website The National Memo", one mentioning Greenberg, one false positive
six hits on the Washington Post: two mentions of Sattler, one of Conason, two discussions of articles published by the website, and one bit of real coverage ("Check out Joe Conason's and Avi Zenilman's new Web site").

That is not in any way an exhaustive search, but seems to indicate that this website has not achieved any significant level of notability. Conason is notable, merge and redirect this to his page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sourcing problems or merge two sentences into Joe Conason. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (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.