Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Obvious consensus to keep the panda ₯’ 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpEdNews[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OpEdNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted via AfD, endorsed at DRV, userfied, worked on, and has now been moved into article space again even though it continues to lack multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know why an article that isn't ready to be in mainspace is being put in mainspace, but the problem is that there are not multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability. The newsbank piece is literally one sentence in a directory-style op-ed about different websites, and the financial express piece is similarly so, with a four sentence paragraph more about swine flu essays than the site itself. It's not notable, and we don't have the sources to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not your role to decide whether the article is "ready to be in mainspace".

    This is Wikipedia, where we're allowed to work on things in the open. It's dangerous and stupid to do otherwise. When we have unfinished articles in the mainspace, and tagged articles and one-sentence articles and other obviously amateurish things, we're openly displaying what Wikipedia really is. If we hide the unfinished articles and the obvious problems, in userspace or wherever you want them to be, then we're presenting ourselves as a more professional website than we really are. Wikipedia already has a serious problem with people trusting us far more than they should. There are strong ethical reasons to have material that's still under construction on view in the mainspace, and I think it's dangerously wrong to pretend otherwise.

    As for the sources, thanks to MichaelQSchmidt's work they're plain for anyone to see, so I'm very confident that your nomination on those grounds will fail.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just surprised you moved an article into mainspace that doesn't meet our inclusion standards, but that's just me. I would have thought you would have actually kept it userfied until it met our inclusion standards, given the result of the previous AfD and DRV. As for the sources, it's clear they're trivial mentions, so hopefully better ones come up. As it stands, it clearly doesn't meet the inclusion standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article clearly doesn't meet your inclusion standards. Whether it meets the project's inclusion standards is not for you to decide.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically true, although no arguments or evidence to show the error in my claims have been presented thus far. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can explain how those two sources you linked above are "non-trivial." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Wikipedia's processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duly noted. The record should show that you're unwilling to show how a one sentence line and one paragraph about the website in directory-style newspaper clippings are "non-trivial." I'm not as inflexible on this issue as you think. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability now sufficiently established by the sources. Information about this belongs here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the sources that establish notability, then? We've been down this road before, and nothing new has been offered. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Your essay is noted, but the issue is that the article continues to lack the pieces necessary to demonstrate notability, and continues to lack the reliable sources necessarily to sustain an article. This isn't about imperfection, this isn't about any of that, but simply that it's not a noteworthy enough article to justify inclusion and lacks the sources to build an encyclopedia article, and you have yet to offer anything to demonstrate otherwise. It keeps getting nominated because it's not appropriate for inclusion at this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While essays addressed my perception of motivation for your third deletion nomination of this topic within a year, my Keep is dependent upon applicable guideline, NOT essay nor personal opinion. As WP:GNG is not the same sort of mandate as WP:V, ignoring my valid question does not make it go away. So to ask just that portion again... is it that you feel the established guidelines WP:RSOPINION (covering the written work of experts) and WP:USEBYOTHERS (use of a site by other sources) may be ignored in determining whether or not inclusion of an article on this topic could improve this project? Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but if you're basing your keep on applicable guidelines, and the guidelines do not match up with the reality of this article, where does that lead us? Your points regarding the reliable source guideline have to do with its use as a source, and is not an article inclusion guideline. What you want to look at is WP:N, WP:WEB, and the like, and perhaps find those notable, reliable sources specifically about the topic to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing out it meets WP:WEB and under WP:WEBCRIT, and that guidline reminding that "...notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners." I would think that use by and quotations used in multiple reliable sources meets this criteria. Ii feel sheepish that I overlooked something so obvious. As THAT clinches notability, article content can be carefully supported by information gleaned from OpEdNEws site itself under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG. Again, thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentions are trivial ones, which is why they don't meet the guideline. Per WP:WEB: "except for...trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site." I don't know how else to explain this to you. It hasn't attracted any real notice, and, as WP:WEB says, "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that ...editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Even with OpEdNews being covered in more-than-trivial manner in multiple books (which can be added over time and through regular editing), we do not that require other sites dedicate lengthy articles solely to the topic of OpEdNews. As you pointed out... and now back-peddle from... just so long as it "has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners", notability is reasonably established. And being established, there is no hurry. We can improve the article content over time and through regular editing right here on Wikipedia under under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG, and those multiple book sources. Seeing your repeated efforts over the last 10 months to remove this article, I expect you will make it a personal mission to (perhaps impatiently) oversee progress and demand immediate perfection when none is expected or required. And if "kept" as a result of this AFD, I expect you will bring the topic back to to AFD a fourth or fifth or sixth time with similar results... so I encourage patience, and will thank you again. Can we at least agree that we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue and so cease this WP:BLUDGEON? Personally, I'd like to hear opinions from others. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If notability is established as you say, can you please show the multiple, reliable sources that give this site nontrivial coverage? You claim there are books that do this, can you please cite the ones you believe here for us for review? We don't see eye to eye, but incorrect statements about the alleged sources must be addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee... the book search results are kinda obvious if one clicks the proffered links, but being at work at the moment I am unable to scurry out to the nearest university library with access to hard copy book sources. I hope acceptance of WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT and just a little WP:AGF is reasonable? And even with a keep looming, I would appreciate hearing from others. Wouldn't you? And y the way, User:S Marshall did previously point out that non-trivial coverage such as The Intelligencer existed and brief but non-trivial information was contained in such as Financial Express long before I did. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem: I've done all this legwork. I've done it months ago. There are no nontrivial mentions in books in your searches, and had you done that search before posting it here, you'd know this. As for the coverage you point out, one is a single sentence, and one is a paragraph, half of which is about a satirical essay. It's the textbook definition of trivial. Yes, I'm hoping others will chime in. I'm hoping those who chime in with a keep can offer up nontrivial sources that conform to our inclusion guidelines, as they are not forthcoming at present. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A greater problem is that your "legwork" was negative... being done only to discredit, not improve... and now "legwork" must counter that faulty legwork claimed to have been done "months ago". WP:IDHT becomes an issue almost of an intent to mislead others when dismissing a 500+ word article by Theresa Katalinas in The Intelligencer as a "satirical essay" or the 165 word multi-sentence piece in The Financial Express as a "one-liner". We do not set the editorial policies of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia nor declare them irrelevant because of a perceived tone or a personal animus. Reliable sources giving coverage are reliable sources giving coverage. Period. We may also look to the verifiable fact that multiple sources outside of Wikipedia have deemed the content of OpEdNews as written by numerous experts worthy enough to be repeated and reported and quoted in their own publications. THAT'S a decent determinant of notability even without OpEdNews itself being a sole and focused topic of that coverage. Thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for asserting that the local interest piece by Katalinas (which is noted by seeing what section it's in at the bottom) was the single line piece. The single line piece is linked above. The Financial Express piece is what I correctly noted as "a paragraph, half of which is about a satirical essay." This is what we call "trivial coverage." There is no real nontrivial coverage to work with here to support an article or meet our inclusion guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* The Intelligencer is not exactly some unheard-of backwoods-gazette and has passed the test of being a reliable source. You asked for an independent reliable source offering more-than-trivial information about the site and its founder and were given one. That it it began with discussion of a world-interest-issue, can be read world-wide, and yet verifies information about OpEdnews, kinda pokes holes in a spurious claim of "local interest only". Though you might not agree, other editors here might certainly use a little common sense and under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG wonder why so many experts share their experts opinions on the website and why so many, many reliable sources choose to quote OpEdNews or refer to those opinions on their own websites. Even if you personally do not wish it, Wikipedia is not set in stone and occasional exceptions apply. Even if some feel liberal opinions are fringe, in a balanced encyclopedia we can cover cover it neutrally. I hereby apologize to other editors who might swing by and see this back-and-forth as being somewhat pointless. Elucidation was the goal, not oration. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I point out the issue with The Intelligencer because it's a local news item. It's trivial even by the points of its own paper and tells us mostly nothing about the site other than basic information. Yes, common sense should be used here, and common sense tells us that no one has found it important to cover this topic in depth, and that it's not sensible to include this in an encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV endorsed the closure, and these are not non-trivial mentions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not require entire tomes dedicated to any topic for it to be found notable through enough lessor more-than-trivial sources as offered by User:Cunard. The DRV result was as it was simply because no reversible flaw was found in that AFD closure. The DRV was not itself an AFD discussing notability, but when editors speaking up at the DVR spoke about the site meeting inclusion criteria, an improved article was eventually returned to mainspace per WP:CCC. And yes, I fully expect you to disagree here, to completely ignore the fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables, to completely ignore that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere, and to fully disagree with yet again with any who does not see it your way. Is this perhaps a sign of a pointy renomination? Will there be a moment where you would consider WP:DTS? Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's continually telling that it's not that there's a strong argument for keeping it being presented, but just a lot of essays and bad faith. I don't understand the need for this non-noteworthy subject to have an article, but I'm certainly not assuming anything about those who are advocating here. Very strange. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really ?? You have made it a special point to question every keep. Would you respond in kind to any "deletes" should they arrive before this is discussion is closed? Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the deleted be based on the same misguided reasoning? If so, then yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As your own refusal to accept growing consensus is telling, I think you'd happily support any reasoning as narrow as your own... ignoring that while policy is rarely mutable, guidelines are written on a far softer pallet. One of our cornerstone policies for dealing with them is WP:IAR. Improving this project for its readers takes precedence over any personal feeling that the topic of a website verifiable as sharing the opinions of notable experts and verifiable as being widely quoted and referred to in numerous reliable sources.... in somehow not worthy of being written of within these pages to enlighten our readers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus of the project is that articles lacking multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources do not get articles. The "growing consensus" existed long before I got here. If you don't like the inclusion guidelines of the project, you're free to change them, but saying we should ignore them isn't a quality argument, and one hopes that others who join this discussion and/or the closing administrator will do their due diligence regarding the weakness of the keep arguments in the context of previous discussions and the site policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have discussions just like this to decide one-by-one when there is disagreement. And a closer will decide whether or not other's interpretation of guideline and common sense are valid, not you. If the decision goes against you (as seems likely), I would hope you will respect the consensus result reached at THIS discussion for THIS topic. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funny thing is that the disagreement is not that there are or are not multiple, non-trivial sources, but that you think it shouldn't matter. That is a problem. And if this somehow survives AfD, it will likely be nominated again, either by me or by someone else, unless those multiple, non-trivial sources surface. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was very carefully explained by Cunard that more-than-trivial coverage exists and was offered. The sadly "funny thing" is your refusal to accept that fact and your promise to encourage renomination if consensus closes against your wishes. That is the root problem here. Have a good day. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So where is the nontrivial coverage? Cunard hasn't presented it yet, that user has presented trivial coverage. Where is the nontrivial coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He presented it above and clarified when you claimed in was not SIGCOV. I cannot teach the blind to see. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I pointed out that they were trivial. He has not since responded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014
  • No need that he do so and User:Cunard is wise to not engage. What I observe took place was his reading your responses to everyone who thought the topic worth being written about here on Wikipedia, followed by his writing a carefully considered opinion and explaining in his comment just how they were not trivial. You disagree, fine. Your repeated claims running counter to the 33-1/2 years of editing experience (372,000+ edits) speaking in support of the article contrary to your 3 years and 10 months (5,400+ edits) notwithstanding, he is not required to respond to a brick wall. A keep seems destined, and I am myself quite tired of my futile attempts to explain. Thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to continue responding, but your claims that do not match with the policies and guidelines of this project will be taken into effect. No information as to why these are not trivial have been provided, and simply saying "they're not trivial" isn't enough. But this is meant to be a discussion, and you don't want to discuss but simply malign my points, my contributions, and me personally. What does that tell us? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the first things editors should learn is to respect consensus in discussions and not bludgeon the processes. When any editor feels his the only correct voice in an AFD discussion when a majority of long-experienced editors say otherwise, maybe he needs to accept that it is not his Wikipedia, it is everyone's. Behavioral guideline instructs that is it unhelpful to disrupt the process by beating something to death. That said, and as myself and numerous others have tried hopelessly to explain how your personal definition of "trivial" is not in the true spirit of improving the project, I will respect WP:KETTLE and wait for a close. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree! Unfortunately, people have bucked consensus by continuing to bring an article back that doesn't meet our guidelines. The discussion will likely have to be relisted because of the bad faith of editors and the lack of addressing the key points regarding the value and breadth of the sources provided. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sigh) Not agreeing with a Thargor Orlando point of view is 'not bad faith. But repeatedly and intentionally accusing experienced and respected editors of bad faith could be considered a problematic violation of WP:CIV. Like it or (obviously) not, under WP:WIP even articles seen (by you) as weak can be brought to life and worked on. We're building something something here. There is no project-wide demand for perfection of any article other than one with BLP issues. I encourage you to study and understand why WP:IMPERFECT and WIP exist. And in case you do not understand, an AFD re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the consensus is simply not in your favor nor because others do no wish to argue once their opinions have been made quite clear (even if not you). WP:NPOV is a policy for a reason. Please leave your political leanings outside the door before walking in and muddying up the floors. And by the way... have you ever actually read WP:POINT or WP:BLUD? Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as yet unanswered...
  1. Do you feel it totally irrelevant the verifiable fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables?
  2. Do you feel it totally irrelevant the verifiable fact that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere?
Perhaps we can stop dancing, and I would certainly hope you will accede to consensus and not nominate a 4th time if or when this is closed as "keep". Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those things have nothing to do with the notability of the article, nor do they help build an encyclopedia article, so no to both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sigh, the dance continues) As the topic can be discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner, these valid questions specifically have to deal with why the topic is worthy of sharing with our readers in some fashion. It is revealing that you feel the questions are about "article" notability, and not about the reasonableness of enlightening our readers on a veriable '"topic". I believe your fourth AFD of this topic will be seen as pointy and tendentious. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything can be "discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner." The issue with this article is the lack of nontrivial sources that we can use to build an article, thus calling into question the notability. This is not my "POV," this is the requirement of the project on a whole. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-trivial sources have been presented and yet demeaned and dismissed by you... and repeating, Wikipedia does not require entire tomes dedicated to any topic for it to be found notable through enough less-than-substantive yet more-than-trivial sources (as offered by User:Cunard) and though case-by-case consensus. While helpful, all guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". This tells us that guidelines do not overrule POLICY nor common sense nor case-by-case consensus. We need not all agree, but WP:IDHT and WP:BLUD are decent essays. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense tells us that this topic simply isn't noted enough to sustain an article. No non-trivial sources have been provided, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not common sense to ignore the verifiable fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables, It is not common sense to ignore the verifiable fact that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere. It is not common sense to demand substantial coverage when we have suitable "significant" coverage you chose to denigrate. It is not common sense to arbitrarily decide that our readers shouldn't be given neutral facts about OpEdNews. The site does not itself have to make headlines or meet your non-guideline requirement for "substantial" coverage as a website. Ignored by you is that reliable sources have been offered that offer the policy mandated neutral verification of facts presented in the article. Wikipedia does not require tomes of coverage. Also ignored by you when carefully explained by Cunard above is that some of these available sources, while not substantive in content are still more-than-trivial in nature... thus meeting the description for such as set by guideline WP:SIGCOV. That said, I have real-world concerns that need my attention. So, bye for now and have a nice day. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "verifiable fact" is that being built on "expert opinions," whatever that means, means nothing to its notability or being able to meet our guidelines for inclusion. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand our policies again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not article inclusion guidelines, once again. They are about whether something is a useful, reliable source for an article, not whether it should be included. Misusing guidelines does not help your case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and you will definitely disagree yet again, but they can be under WP:COMMONSENSE considerations. Well-meaning as you might be in your stance, you show an unfortunate misunderstanding of just what WP:IAR truly means. Such insistence that one's own viewpoint is the only possible consideration flags in the face of the many policies and guidelines and essays written to build an encyclopedia. Sorry, but you've exhausted me. Closer, have fun with this looooong discussion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense tells us this is not a notable web site. Why? It has received basically no notice outside of where it is located. I understand you're exhausted by what's meant to be a discussion, but, unfortunately, when claims are made that run contrary to the facts, questioning must occur. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An illuminating thing said here:

"I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Wikipedia's processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)"

After 7 days, no delete opinions beyond those repeated ad nauseum by the nominator Time to close. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A relisting seems more appropriate given the conduct of some above and the lack of explanation of why non-trivial sources confer notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:S Marshall was quite correct in his observations and statements, but even in this you seem to misunderstand how the AFD processes work. A re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the discussion consensus is not in your favor, nor because others do no wish to argue ad nauseum when their honest opinions are quite clear to everyone (except you). Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that one thing that isn't going to impress the closer is the sheer quantity of text we've produced on this very simple matter. I respectfully suggest that you allow Thargor Orlando to have the last word.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was being kind in thinking a relisting may be appropriate, as the consensus of the site is clear on this matter even if the waters of this discussion have been muddied. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not find significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Almost all of the references I was able to check that are currently cited in the article provide trivial coverage of the topic, as a minor part of a single sentence. The two articles that much of the above discussion seem to focus on are from The Intelligencer and Financial Express. I agree the first provides significant coverage; the second is a single brief paragraph. Even if I accepted both as significant coverage, one of the arguments above is that these two sources thereby satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. I take WP:GNG to be much more fluid, with no specific number or types or lengths of reliable sources, whereas the argument above seems to be that two sources always meets the multiple independent reliable source requirement because two is "multiple". Different editors interpret GNG differently, but I think such a literal, most minimal interpretation ignores its intent. Agyle (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficient number of notable contributors does by common sense make a publication notable. (In this case, GNG also, but common sense is the more important consideration, based on the core principle that WP is an encyclopedia == & should therefore contain articles on things significant enough that people would expect to find them in an encyclopedia.) GNG does have some limitations on its usefulness: By manipulating the meaning of the words "multiple", "substantial", "independent" and "reliable", we can pretty much make the GNG guideline mean whatever we want it to. If we do not wish to keep an article, it's usually possible to find some reason to object to the sources. If we want to keep it, is generally possible to find some reason why the sources are adequate. The details of the the way we do this are in the archives of AfDs--and 2 has essentially always been interpreted as sufficiently multiple--the arguments have generally been over whether in some cases one is sufficient. In practice, GNG is well enough accepted here that if in a given case you wish to depart from it, the burden is on you to show a reason why it gives an unsatisfactory result. No reason has been shown here. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG:, the issue here is that we barely have one substantial reliable source, contrary to claims made above. The only substantial source is a local news piece in a small newspaper close to where the editor is located, and even that hit the local news section rather than a general news piece. If we're generous, we have one substantial reliable source. That's it. I would implore you to examine the sources more closely and see what the notability is truly hanging on. That it is a republisher of content from noteworthy people doesn't somehow confer notability, either: that claim doesn't exist in our notability guidelines and would open the door to a lot of nonsense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what has already opened the door to an immense amount of nonsense, is the quibbling about the exact applicability of the GNG, which can be unrelated to the actual notability or the merit of the article, but it is true that an even greater amount would be permitted by its exact use in the minimal sense; on the other hand, its use in the maximal sense you suggest would give a very abridged encyclopedia in many subject fields (including all publications other than books). The only way to avoid these extremes is to do what in practice we increasingly try to do, which is to make a global or RW-criterion based estimate of the appropriateness of the article for the WP. So, on the basis of the actual significance of the subject to an encyclopedia reader, why do you think it fails to the extent of being nonsense that we should eliminate ? DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is actually significant to many readers. It gets relatively few page views according to its own disclosures and the mainstream press has barely noticed its existence. I don't even see a bare minimum to work with here in terms of building an article; the entire thing would end up being based on the local news piece that is basically a reporter repeating the editor's claims about the site. That even reliable, ultra-partisan news sources haven't found this worthy of being written about should be a major flag for us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, appreciate your thoughtful comments next to your Keep opinion. I still differ in my view, and wanted to reply to what you said. First, I was not looking for a reason to justify keeping or deleting the article, or manipulate the interpretation of GNG, but to impartially determine "does this meet GNG". In my opinion it does not; I only found one source I consider significant coverage. It's a subjective determination though, as you presumably found the same Financial Express article to provide significant coverage. Second, regarding your idea of applying a common sense alternative to GNG of "notability of contributors", I disagree with that. There are a dozen notability guidelines that cover different types of topics (academic, medical, companies, media, websites, etc.), refined over the years to include many alternative criteria to GNG, but they do not include exceptions for notable contributors to a website; in fact the web notability guidelines (WP:WEB) seem to suggest the opposite: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." Agyle (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2014 (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/OpEdNews_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1221048825"