Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Herald

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Herald

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

I do not see any evidence for notability, beyond the absurd "one of the top50,000 websites in the UK" . The great majority of the contributors listed do not seem notable.

Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one passing mention of one of their stories at The Guardian but nothing else that wasn't primary sourcing. While recognising that media organisations are unlikely to give publicity to competitors, this really needs some tangible recognition to establish notability and I am not seeing it, so at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly needs improvement - I had thought some others were going to chip in with this, post-listing, but obviously not... (Note I wrote the original article, but it looks to have been edited a little since then). I will have a good go through it this week. Re "mentions" there are a number of academic references; University and media mentions (mainly in journals) that I know of - will attempt to drag them out. There are also a few institutional connections from things like academic conferences. Re "notable contributors" this needs a LOT of updating! I do think that Professors at well respected Universities are notable, however. Many of them have WP listings in their own right. This needs updating too. Will attempt to add info based on contributors and the institutional sources / citations that are publically accessible. Agree on the "top 50,000" part! But this seems like something for edit rather than deletion (subject to significant re-writing)? Also note that I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia references and etc, though I have read a fair chunk of the manual, so please let me know if I've missed something here. There is some good stuff published at The Global Herald and it is increasing in scholarly content of late - it might be too soon, but I'd suggest a stay of execution at least until some of the more noteworthy content & contributors are properly referenced. --Streamreader (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) - so to clarify: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." from Deletion Policy, Alternatives to Deletion (here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATD#Alternatives_to_deletion ). It is my belief that editing will improve this page. Further, I also believe that the "evidence for notability" is precisely this second reason given for the suggested deletion: the person who feels deletion is appropriate does not know (because of a lack of citation) that the people within the list are notable. I happen to know several are, and a quick look through the list here: http://theglobalherald.com/editors-contributors/ would suggest notability, were the list correctly referenced? --Streamreader (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested remedies

1) There is no evidence for notability - the "50,000" reference has been removed from the article. Agree it adds nothing. --Streamreader (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2) There is no evidence for notability & the great majority of the contributors listed do not seem notable - those contributors listed without Wikilinks I will (attempt to) find a citation as to notability (secondary sources). If none can be established, the contributor shall be removed. Following that, the decision can be made without resorting to the current need for guesswork! In doing so, this would be adding "evidence of notability". --Streamreader (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3) Also will attempt to find some of the more cutting edge articles. I can remember a couple which really tied together a lot of contemporary thinking - there will probably be a lot of cross-referencing here to do, so will take a little longer. (help!?) --Streamreader (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning this up - exactly what was needed. --Streamreader (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure your enthusiasm is appreciated, Streamreader. However, the idea that we should give a 'stay of execution' or wait for the article to become notable is unacceptable. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and may even be a case of never will be notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- not sure if this is how to reply?! But I'm not "asking you to wait until something becomes notable (sic)". I am saying that it is notable, but that this notability is not, currently, clear from the (lack of) references in the listing itself. I have attempted to add some of these. All of these people are "notable" and there are pages detailing their notability at specific sections of University / Organisation / Institutional websites. Just a quick Google (or Wikipedia) search for them tells me that. This will only take a little time; hence needs re-writing before the decision to delete / keep? And I thought, having read the AfD text, that the 7 day period here is precisely that, a stay of execution, or am I missing something? --Streamreader (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleaned-up and condensed Streamreader's comments. Streamreader, you should also make a point to state when you are the author of an article in an AfD discussion.

Have added this disclosure. Apologies, I thought it was listed here (I got an email about the move to AfD and revisited this listing for the first time in a lot of months today) --Streamreader (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I have established a little why there is even a debate surrounding this. I had a quick look at WP:PROF and would like to make a comment. While some teachers at academic institutions are known as professors, just being "a faculty member" at a University does NOT make someone a Professor. Professorship is the highest "rank" in the academic world. It is used (where I wrote it in the original article) in that sense. In fact, the existence of this sentence "Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities." Is highly questionable over at WP:PROF, as it points to the (inaccurate?) conclusion that a faculty member is automatically a professor. Perhaps they are in some academic institutions; no Institution I am aware of operates such a system, however. --Streamreader (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Going through some old discussions on this subject, some editors suggest that the number of citations a person has received should be used as a metric. Not so, I argue, for Professorship is a statement of fact. A Professorship is a title bestowed by Academic Institutions. It is, therefore, peer reviewed at the time of issuance. You might only be able to find 100 citations in Google Scholar, but Google is not, alas, a panacea. When someone is made a Professor, usually after 15+ years working (and teaching) at a highly advanced level, this is recognised by the title Professor before their name. When I have used this, it is in this context. I understand that some of this discussion could go on forever, and should be taking place in the talk section at WP:PROF. Understand that where I have named someone "Professor" it is because I believe them to have achieved a named Chair.[reply]

- Additionally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor - note European definition of "Professor". This is the cause of this ambiguity, and, indeed, debate on "notability" of contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamreader (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Streamreader, I'm a bit baffled by various comments above, particularly those looking to deploy notability standards for academics' biographies. This article is about a website and the most relevant notability criteria are those at WP:NWEB. It is not about the individual contributors, nor can it really inherit notability from its contributors, other than if their notability was gained from their association with the magazine. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over twenty (20) notable contributors, and a good deal of source coverage, the page certainly needs cleanup, but there is something salvageable here. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since when is notability heritable? Notable contributors only contribute to the notability of this website if their contributions get noted. The same goes for the list of editors, whether those persons are notable or not is irrelevant. If they are, that might indicate that there is a chance for their site becoming notable in the future. At this point, there are no independent sources convincingly showing notability. The huge amount of references are all about the purportedly notable contributors, not the magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2013 (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.