Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Post Millennial

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Millennial[edit]

[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)

Article about an online news startup, not properly sourced as meeting WP:WEBCRIT. Websites are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the six sources here (its Alexa rank, its self-published masthead and a Twitter tweet) are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all; one is a media bias-rating directory that does not have a well-established reputation as a reliable or accurate rater of media bias; one is a news story which tangentially verifies a stray fact about a person named in the article body, while not even namechecking this website's existence at all in the process; and the last is a podcast.
The podcast is actually a stronger source than usual in this case, as it actually includes genuine third-party analysis about The Post Millennial by an unaffiliated journalist, and is not just a Q&A interview in which the site's founders are talking about themselves -- but it's still a podcast, which means it doesn't get this over the notability bar all by itself as the only acceptable source in play. None of the other sources are doing anything at all, as all of them fail one or both of the "reliable source" and "substantively about The Post Millennial" tests -- but that still leaves us with just one decent notability-supporting source, and passing WP:GNG requires much more than just one decent notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some citations. The site is growing quickly and has been cited in National newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halijohn (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting cited in other publications is not the notability test for a media outlet. Being the subject of coverage in other publications is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the well analyzed rationale of the Nom. Sources may be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability and this is lacking. According to Alexa.com there would be 2470 websites rated higher. Relaxing the notability criteria could open the door for a host of equally non-notable articles. Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2019 (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.