Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novara Media (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 delete. It's not as resounding as decision as it appears from a nose count -- some of the delete arguments are rooted in the WP:PROMO tone of the article, which is really an argument to clean up and not one to delete. But the bulk of the policy-based arguments fall on the delete side of the debate, and go largely unrebutted. No prejudice against re-creation later with better sourcing; I cannot evaluate Newimpartial's paywalled French sources, but if others can use them to make verifiable citations for a new article, then they should do so. A Train^talk 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novara Media[edit]

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

This had been deleted at an earlier AfD, then brought to review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 13. The result of that review was to relist at AfD. This is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (2nd nomination). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scholarly books addressing this media collective would by themselves be sufficient to establish notability. An absurd nomination. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whole article is written like a piece of promotions serves the purpose of its creator, which also a part of AfD, and previously deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory or not for building profiles. Light2021 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question {U|Newimpartial}}, what scholarly books are you referring to? There are none listed in the references, nor do I see a single scholarly article there. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking primarily of David Bell's"Rethinking Utopia: Power, Place, Affect", although Novara Media is also discussed in this peer-reviewed article (in French) [1]. I recognize that All Day Long and Kill All Normies are not scholarly books lol. There are also books which both cite Novara and which have also been endorsed by Novara spokespeople, but I understand that those do not contribute to Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what is the extent of coverage in that book? DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In both the book and the French-language article, Novara is discussed as supporting evidence on accellerationism and the post-scarcity economy, which in both cases is focused on Srnicek and Williams. Given the overall post-Deleuzean style of writing here, I would attrbitute significance to the repeated reference. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion carries a nasty taint of right wing censorship. The fact that Wikipedia is not a directory is not relevant. Otherwise it calls into question other articles such as the Daily Mail (which I understand is not accepted as a valid source of reference by Wikipedia),and other periodicals. Novara Media is a developing part of a growing alternative news media, which includes Mint Press News and The Canary. If it gives an impression of merely building a profile, simply because it is an introductory article by the founder, I suggest instead a template is added appealing for more independent authorship. Chevin (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY on an org that's not encyclopedically relevant just yet. I don't see any scholarly discussion of Novara Media, just passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NORG; perhaps it's just too soon. Even if the topic is important, we don't have to accept promotional articles. If the subject is indeed notable (of which I'm not yet convinced), then someone not connected to it would create an article down the road. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a promotional piece clearly written by the entity. Novara is a minor player in the media (comparisons to the Daily Mail, which though abhorrent, reaches millions and is worth millions make no sense). Worse, sources don't march the statements in article. See ref 13, this does not show the editor of the LRB making any such statement, nor does Google reveal that the editor made any such statement. Worse still, the person is described as "the editor" when in fact he is just "an" editor. The editor is a completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digorykirke (talk • contribs) 07:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yes, promotional piece, with misrepresented sources and obvious efforts to make every little mention in the press count toward notability. Comparing this to the Daily Mail is ridiculous; the Daily Mail is over 120 years old and has books dedicated to it as well as a large number of peer-reviewed academic articles. By contrast, this article tries to survive by way of misrepresentation, namedropping and linkspamming. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (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.