Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Atlas
- 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
New Atlas
- New Atlas (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)
Prod removed by creator. Many refs that proves that company exists, but no refs to show
reliable sources to show notability. There are several sources in the article but most of them are primary sources; the rest do not appear in-depth enough to indicate notability. Cannot find any coverage of the site itself. -- Darth Mike (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
]
- FYI, the publication was formerly called Gizmag -- Darth Mike (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete: The article seems to exist only for promotional purposes. I don't see any indication of significant coverage in high-quality independent reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback but I can assure you as the creator the intention of this piece isn't promotional, but to provide details on the long history of the business using Gizmodo as base structure to create the page. I will look to add a section on coverage with details on breaking news & additional notable sources. Will post here as soon as this has been updated, any further advice & guidance is greatly appreciated. —Coast123 (talk) 9:30, 10 November 2016 (GMT)
- Keep: Page has been updated to include additional citations and material. Looking to expand the new coverage section due to the high number of brand references within Wikipedia. —Coast123 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2016 (GMT)
- Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a cited source in articles or as evidence of notability. Practically none of that material that you put into the article is talking about the website itself or establishing its notability, as best I can tell. Most of it was not about the website at all. The fact that some person who works for the website or owns the website was on some panel with 100 other people to give some award to someone else does nothing to establish the notability of the website and is basically irrelevant – that might be some (very minor) evidence that the person is notable, but it does nothing to establish that the website is notable. The fact that the website published an article about some camera does nothing to establish the notability of the website – even if some other people read that article and reference it in other articles. It might be evidence of the notability of the camera, but not the website that talked about it. What we need is in-depth coverage about the website in independent reliable sources. Please see edit summaries when editing to explain your edits? It would be helpful to understand the motivation of the edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)]
- The page isn't about the website, it's about the brands history and key figures involved during this time so I don't see how awards or key figures involved are irrelevant? Completely understand your reasoning RE notability so I've attempted to re-edit the content accordingly. The publication receives the majority of its coverage on other sites based on the articles & reports it produces, hence the large number of references throughout Wikipedia. This demonstrates the site as a trusted source, so the 'coverage' section was an attempt to display key breaking new stories where the brand has been cited by notable sources, again based on the Gizmodo page. Appreciate the feedback, thanks —Coast123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are there any references that talk ABOUT New Atlas/Gizmag. There are plenty of refs that show that it exists, but I cannot find any in-depth articles that talk about it. For instance, if you look at the Gizmodo page, there are plenty of references talking about Gizmodo and not just using Gizmodo as a source. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ah that makes a lot more sense, I'll investigate - thanks! —Coast123 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (GMT)
- Yes, please. The article is about New Atlas/Gizmag. Per WP:GNG, it should cite "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that talk about New Atlas/Gizmag "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Currently the article does not have that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
- Ok I think (hope) we're almost there! The page now includes more details about the website specifically including a diverse array of sources i.e. the Sydney Morning Herald, HighBeam Research and other independent publications. Let me know what you guys think, I've found references toward a book in which the founder had contributed but as it's not the website specifically not sure if that's relevant? Thanks again —Coast123 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2016 (GMT)
- Unless there are any other points of feedback based on the recent changes can we now mark this discussion as resolved? Thanks for all the help. Coast123 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2016 (GMT)
- Yes, please. The article is about New Atlas/Gizmag. Per
- Ah that makes a lot more sense, I'll investigate - thanks! —Coast123 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (GMT)
- Are there any references that talk ABOUT New Atlas/Gizmag. There are plenty of refs that show that it exists, but I cannot find any in-depth articles that talk about it. For instance, if you look at the Gizmodo page, there are plenty of references talking about Gizmodo and not just using Gizmodo as a source. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The page isn't about the website, it's about the brands history and key figures involved during this time so I don't see how awards or key figures involved are irrelevant? Completely understand your reasoning RE notability so I've attempted to re-edit the content accordingly. The publication receives the majority of its coverage on other sites based on the articles & reports it produces, hence the large number of references throughout Wikipedia. This demonstrates the site as a trusted source, so the 'coverage' section was an attempt to display key breaking new stories where the brand has been cited by notable sources, again based on the Gizmodo page. Appreciate the feedback, thanks —Coast123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a cited source in articles or as evidence of notability. Practically none of that material that you put into the article is talking about the website itself or establishing its notability, as best I can tell. Most of it was not about the website at all. The fact that some person who works for the website or owns the website was on some panel with 100 other people to give some award to someone else does nothing to establish the notability of the website and is basically irrelevant – that might be some (very minor) evidence that the person is notable, but it does nothing to establish that the website is notable. The fact that the website published an article about some camera does nothing to establish the notability of the website – even if some other people read that article and reference it in other articles. It might be evidence of the notability of the camera, but not the website that talked about it. What we need is in-depth coverage about the website in independent reliable sources. Please see
Personally, I still don't think it passes
WP:GNG
. Of the thirteen refs:
1. Two sentences that shows it exists. 2. Own site. First party. 3. Not about site, about culture clashes. 4. Three sentences that shows it exists. 5. A line in a chart (it exists). 6. Linked-In profile 8. Short paragraph that says it exists. 9. It exists. 11. Looks like a paid advertisement. 12. Own site. First party. 13. Three sentences that shows it exists. Of the two left, 7 and 10, they're both just
interviews with the creator. Not independent from the subject matter. -- Darth Mike (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep: All of the references that state it exists are included as it backs up a statement about the brand / website, so whilst I respect your opinion I have to disagree. Also references 7 & 10 are not interviews, they just include quotes taken from the owner Mike Hanlon, with the articles themselves covering key events in Gizmag’s history which is independent of the subject matter. Compared to other Wikipedia pages for publications such as ) 16:06, 24 November 2016 (GMT)
- Note: I have struck the duplicate !vote above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I am unable to find significant coverage about the website or any indication why it was significant. The sources are also not good enough, as can be seen from the analysis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as questionable source with only expectations of PR and nothing else suggesting both genuinely and sufficient otherwise, thus delete since the article is showing it. SwisterTwister talk 08:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The problem appears to be one of multiple reliable sources. However you cut it, there seems to be consensus (minus, of course, the article creator) that there is one, maybe two, RS. That doesn't reach notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.