Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signpost

Add links
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 of the debate was Snowball keep. Mostly thanks to Cirt's efforts at article expansion, it is now clear that the article meets WP:GNG. -Pete (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost (Wikipedia)

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

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

Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:GNG Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and trout Guy Macon. Guy Macon very recently falsely accused of a COI. This AFD nomination seems to be retaliation for my editing at another article. The article was recently started and editors are working on it. If Guy Macon wants to withdraw his nomination then that is fine if he does not AFD it again. Blanking it after it started won't work for me. See WP:WDAFD if you want to officially withdraw the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Filing AfDs by hand. Never again. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:QuackGuru, you reposted the AfD notice[1] that that your actions messed up,[2][3] so now you can fix it. Have fun. If you ever delete an AfD notice before the person who posted it saves the discussion page again, (you only gave me 2 minutes!) I will take you to AfD for being deliberately disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to withdraw the AFD or not? Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't post it. You did.[4] You are responsible for anything that you post to Wikipedia. I wanted to blank it as being badly malformed and start over, but you insist on interfering, so it is now on you to fix the malformed RfC that you posted. Now get to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What in God's name is this stupid, juvenile slapfight? Seriously? Is this seriously, actually a "He started it! No he started it!" argument on Wikipeida? Guy Macon, please, take a quick walk on this one, and then decide if you would formally like to withdraw this, or not. Quack, it may be a good idea to consider avoiding discussions where issues like this may arise, though it really is up to you on that one. In any case, Guy Macon both of you needs a hefty trouting. Now, can we get back to the discussion about this article? Thanks. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guy Macon, you said "You are responsible for anything that you post to Wikipedia." Very well then. If Guy Macon says I am responsible for the AFD then I officially withdraw the AFD. Any editor can close the debate and speedy keep it. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly attacking the editor who filed the AfD is not going to save the article you created. Please stick to the question at hand. Do you have any evidence of notability? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sources in the article that indicate it is notable. It was recently expanded. You should not follow my contributions and then AFD this article without the best of intentions. Do you also want to trout me for your behavior issues? QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please comment on whether the page should be deleted, not on other editors. We have all read the "several sources in the article". I don't see any real evidence of notability there. Do you intend on creating articles for all of the hundreds of things mentioned in How Wikipedia Works or Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have zero idea what might be going on between Guy Macon and QuackGuru, but simply evaluating the AFD on its own, this is navel gazing with very very weak notability. Maybe a brief mention in Wikipedia but as a standalone article, no. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The content was moved to English Wikipedia. This AFD discussion is moot and irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real evidence of actual notability. All sources seem to be nothing but passing mentions. WP:GNG. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike my vote. I'm still not super happy with the refs. Few seem to actually be about the publication itself, just passing mentions. However, I can't comment on the books, and the raw amount of mentions might be enough here. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Allthefoxes, for your kind words about our Quality improvement efforts to the article. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions and improvements. Anyone can talk about an article, but few can really make a difference like editors like you. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedia community. North America1000 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Signpost has had some scoops. And it is not navel-gazing, IMO, it is simply sensible for Wikipedia to be the place to go to find out basic facts about The Signpost as a media outlet, rather than some other website. I don't know if a Wikipedia-focused website or two might have a review of The Signpost or not, but it would a shame IMO for Wikipedia not to be the go-to source about it. To avoid appearance of navel-gazing, the article should be kept short and extremely factual and err on the side of being humble. For example, perhaps mentioning Snow as a founder seems okay since he became chair of board later, while naming a person who is not otherwise clearly notable could come across as vanity. --doncram 04:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty good argument. If you edit the page to be as described, removing WP:COATRACKing such as the bit that starts with "Writing about the current crisis at the Wikimedia Foundation..." I will be very much inclided to change mt !vote to "keep". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the present form, I say Keep, but with a concern that the soapboxing may be added back later. Certain individuals really, really want an article in mainspace containing their POV about recent events concerning Wikipedia management, and I doubt that anything less thatn a topic ban will stop that effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I just edited it down slightly more (though better wording welcomed). I note it has no usage of word "volunteer"; it is instead "managed by the Wikipedia community" as if it just emerges automatically. Some reference to the volunteer editors should be given! Perhaps something like "The number of regular writers and editors--all volunteers--has varied from one to five [if those are the correct numbers], during 200x to 2016." A factual statement like that is verifiable by review of all past issues, and does not need to be supported by a published source. --doncram 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not commenting on the GNG rationale at this time because there are 4 books to check and other sources.
The Signpost is cited as a reliable source by other publications. At Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria there are criteria saying, "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works". The "passing mentions" which are said to not count for GNG would be supporting evidence that The Signpost is cited for its content. Since The Signpost is cited by reliable sources, then it meets inclusion criteria as a widely cited publication in its field. Does anyone dispute this publication's authority for reporting Wikipedia issues, or that it is cited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this feels very WP:POINTy. Blythwood (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with somewhat of a COI as a former editor there. Had this been two months ago, I would have !voted to delete, but the recent media coverage puts it over the hump IMHO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good deal of coverage, over a nice period of a stretch of time, in multiple different types of sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Signpost&oldid=1149837781"