Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diplomat
Source: 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Diplomat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Diplomat is only self referencing and that hardly meets the Notability standards of Wikipedia. I could not find any information that would indicate they get a large number of page views. Their staff is hardly notable either. This looks more like an advertisement, and possibly spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imasomething (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article says they've interviewed world leaders "ranging from Brent Scowcroft to Anwar Ibrahim". I found the publication looking for articles by Minxin Pei, a well-known scholar. It's not as notable as the New York Times, but it's not somebody's personal website either. When I found the publication, I came to Wikipedia to learn more about it; it would be too bad if there was nothing here. guanxi (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you can find a mention of it being important outside of its own website I would be more impressed. This is a notability issue and the problem is , so far as I see, that Wikipedia has no notability standards for magazines.Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Same here; I found that Leigh Sales had written for this publication and I learned from this article the essential facts about it. That's what encyclopedias do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question about notability. They don't even mention how many people view their website. Maybe it is a million, but it can also be a well written e-zine that only their families read. Again Notability is the criteria. Merely existing does not mean notability.Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The article includes one article from the The Age that covers the demise of the print edition. Also coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' per above reasonings, Sadads (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDespite claims of notability it is in very clear violation of the rules regarding self referencing. Becuase at one time it may have been a significant publication I didn't put it on the fast track delete status. If someone were to put in material which were not readily avaible (and mainly copied word for word) in their website, I would be happy to agree to switch to a keep (this was a self edit made after coffee permitted to write full sentences)
Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposing and !voting to delete? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP per Whpq. The article is a stub but it meets GNG. I do not see anyone disputing the validity of the extant sources. Blue Rasberry 09:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet GNG. It ceased publishing precisely because it ceased to be notable. Generally when people stop buying your magazine, it is no longer notable. Can you show me the exact way it is notable. Self advertising (with the exception of very brief mentions two years ago) hardly qualify it. This is the question. This is also the big problem not having guidelines to go by (I believe the last guidelines were not approved in the end) Imasomething (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The general notability guidelines are satisifued through coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have been put forward. Having ceased publication is not a criteria for deleting an article on a magazine, oherwise, Category:Defunct magazines would be completely empty and Punch (magazine) would be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the well established guideline Notability is not temporary, I find Imasomething's argument difficult to follow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, multiple reliable sources provided, meets WP:N. A dedicated article in the SMH is not a "very brief mention". If User:Imasomething had bothered to actually read the sources, he'd also know that it has (or had) a circulation of over 10k an issue, which isn't too bad. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, I looked on Alexa and it has a ranking of about 50,000. Not amazing, but pretty good. It's also cited as a source in a Financial Times blog that seems to link to it regularly. daveym77 —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC). — daveym77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply- okay lets call things for what they are. The additional sources were not put on until after the 16th of feburary and I had not seen them. so no need to start with the personal attacks. They are two 'reliable' sources but onefrom 2004 and one was 2 years ago. I think further edits need to more fully add the fact that they were sued for IP issues. I did a lexis nexis search (which is far more reliable than google) and you know how many turned up ...you guessed it 0. If you notice also (and I know I am wasting my time here ) The diplomat was only being talked about because it was being sued, not for any work it was currently doing. Anyway it is misclassified as an Australian stub (it is based in Japan). And that raises suspicions that some people (and i am not accusing anyone here, more like the writers of the stub) is using it to advertise a desperately failing website. I don't care really. I think the fact that we have a total of possibly three sources and deem it "notable" makes the entry bar far too low, but that is admin problem not mine.
What is Alexa, I am going to put the other 49,999 of the websites that rank above the diplomat on wikipedia and you all will of course support it :) i hope someone fixes the cut and paste job in the section about its history Imasomething (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I just did a search and found the last mention in mainstream media was by the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper last week, which recommended the site's China special. So I took the time to look at who has written for this site in the last six months. A US undersecretary of state and a former British foreign secretary have written for them. The site's bloggers include a UN Peace Chair, a writer for the UK's The Independent newspaper, a former bureau chief with AFP and a Philippines politician. It took me less than 10 minutes to find all this out, so there is probably more if I looked harder. I am unclear why you keep disagreeing on this with everyone else here. Plus I see now the argument has now shifted from an attempt to delete the site's entry completely to arguing that more edits need to be made to emphasize a negative story about this publication. Frankly, this is all sounding a bit personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveym77 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - A magazine's Alexa ranking may be indicative of notability, but a high ranking does not establish notability. Notable writers having provided material for the magazine may be indicative of notability, but again, it does not establish notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). What establishes notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. To that end, simply stating that you found a mention of the magazine in the Daily Telegraph is meaningless unless you can provide a link tot eh article for others to evaluate, or some citation to the specific issue and page. I beleive the Age and Herlad articles already mentioned are sufficient to establish notability, but more sourcing is never a bad thing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I just did a search and found the last mention in mainstream media was by the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper last week, which recommended the site's China special. So I took the time to look at who has written for this site in the last six months. A US undersecretary of state and a former British foreign secretary have written for them. The site's bloggers include a UN Peace Chair, a writer for the UK's The Independent newspaper, a former bureau chief with AFP and a Philippines politician. It took me less than 10 minutes to find all this out, so there is probably more if I looked harder. I am unclear why you keep disagreeing on this with everyone else here. Plus I see now the argument has now shifted from an attempt to delete the site's entry completely to arguing that more edits need to be made to emphasize a negative story about this publication. Frankly, this is all sounding a bit personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveym77 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (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.