Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrek

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 no consensus. Low participation despite multiple relistings. Editors are also encouraged to look up the links provided and attempt to improve the article before speedy renominating.

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Electrek

[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)

Fails

WP:GNG and is certainly no more notable than the other news sites in the 9tp5 network (9to5 Apple, 9to5 Google) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say that since I created the article two years ago Electrek has evolved differently than I had expected. I am however unsure whether this means that the article is not notable. Regarding its actual reporting

Arstechnica has something to day - and mainstream media cites Electrek often enough: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Since the article creation also some notable, negative sentiment about Electrek has surfaced, [6]. Looking forward, I am concerned about Electrek as a news media when its main writer inserts themselves into some kind of pro- vs anti-Tesla debate with an op-ed like this [7] - which does not contribute to seeing its future reporting as objective. But these various observations seems to me to establish notability, rather than the opposite. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the site does not appear to be the subject of reportage or discussion by independent reliable sources which calls into question how notable it really is. I would also like to call attention to the point that I made earlier regarding how Electrek's editor in chief admitted to owning a number of shares in Tesla. Therefore, the purported "divestment" statement currently on the Wikipedia entry is inaccurate. If we were to remove that sentence, the article becomes even more meager. QRep2020 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep My gut feel is that any site that is quoted as much as this one and is discussed by others, even in controversial terms, is probably notable. I don't think the site is reliable and if Tesla goes under it might follow. But my general feeling is Wikipedia can err on the side of keeping topics alive vs not. Another way to put it, my gut feeling is there is enough RS content about Electrek to justify an article even if we currently don't have enough in the Wikipedia article to justify it's current existence. Springee (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:37, 23 June 2020 (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.