Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitribune

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

There is a

Given this website may certainly become notable in the future (or

• Keep *sigh* Just let the article
  snowball. Also, IF the subject is deemed not notable, just redirect to Jimmy Wales. Deletion unnecessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, calling for snowball upon the very first !vote on an AfD is... certainly interesting (especially by the original author). Having taken part in many AfDs, I am quite reasonably sure that most articles about such a "fresh" topic would far from snowball at an AfD, but, I guess someone who wanted to think maliciously would use this difference as evidence that there is special treatment being granted to this topic. LjL (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AB clearly means he thinks it will snowball. No need to be snarky. My opinion is this: Redirection to Jimmy Wales implies that it's all his enterprise, which it is notmay not be. I'll wait a bit to see how the article develops, because I'm slightly persuaded by the nominator's rationale that the same day the initiative is announced may be too soon for an article. - Bri (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence my suggestion it might be suitable for a draft. Seriously, the article was almost fully-fledged on Wikipedia at nearly the same time as it appeared on any news sources... This can only make me feel very uneasy, especially considering there is always a large amount of
    WP:TOOSOON, while this is, for now, a minor, announced but not open-to-public website that just so happens to be not-so-indirectly connected to Wikipedia. Really, whether or not that's coincidental in reality, what sort of impression does that give readers (who are already there en masse from places like Reddit) about Wikipedia's supposed neutrality? LjL (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is clearly notable and notability does not expire. In any case, per
  WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Easy keep. Tech press.[1][2][3][4] Biz press.[5][6][7][8] Political.[9][10][11][12] News magazines.[13][14][15][16] Radio.[17] Television.[18][19] Newspapers.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Academia.[28] I'm seeing coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Italy, Germany, Russia, Argentina, maybe others. One might quibble that these refs are not *all* guaranteed to be RS, or that maybe this will be the last coverage every received, or that this is just 'routine' coverage of yet another web startup being launched by somebody who is often in the news for other reasons, but that is wiki-lawyering. Wikitribune passes
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Even if no other sources are ever published we have enough to write a neutral encyclopedic article already. And that is what we should do. 'COI' disclosure: I have posted to Jimbotalk before  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Premature Nomination/Keep for now - Seriously, this kind of slamming an AfD simply needs to end on stuff like this. If you want to re-nominate in several months after an article fails to get written to any degree and if the news coverage for this website stops (which seems to be the nominator's logic for this AfD), you might have a point. This isn't even appropriate at this to time make the kind of argument being made here. As to if this topic is currently notable, the basic test of several independent sources of information can definitely be found that more than deals with questions of
  WP:NOTE. Arguments about this from a political perspective belong on the Village Pump and definitely does not belong here turning the AfD into something of an indictment of the concept as presented by Jimmy Wales. If this nomination happened several months from now, I might even support a deletion.... assuming the article flounders and isn't much larger than when the nomination was just made. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes GNG based on my searching. Yes, it's launched today, but it's being picked up by as heavy-weight of reliable sources as you can get (Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, NYT, etc etc - basically everyone). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One section above
  WP:ATD this should definitely be redirected/merged to Jimmy's article if it actually weren't a notable topic so deletion would never be the correct way to handle it. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:SNOWBALL. But why even nominate this for deletion? It's a completely legit redirect, isn't it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Can't see any good reason to delete this, at this time. Danrok (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes
  WP:GNG. I wish editors would stop wasting our time with AfDs such as this one! Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for many of the reasons above. It is notable, in many papers all over the world and people want to read about it. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 22:31, 25 April 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.