- 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. Meets WP:GNG. I'd advise the nominator to read through WP:NEXIST before they nominate another article. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Dot
- The Daily Dot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1. Significance 2. No credible references 3. Low quality digital content publication using misleading techniques to acquire new visitors Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Jone Rohne Nester ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment @ DGG: and @ Cunard:, I am look for expert opinions here, I believe the Daily Dot is considered WP:RS per this discussion, not sure though. I am not an expert in this field, but I do believe this as absolutely a notable news publication. Valoem talk contrib 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Valoem: "absolutely a notable news publication"? First of all , The Daily Dot is nowhere close to being a news publication (clickbait headlines, media driven content and lack of information). Secondly, this article lacks of significant references and external sources. Finally, no major investments in this company, no press coverage etc. In any case this is my personal opinion and I will leave it to decide to community whether this page should be deleted or not @ DGG: thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 17:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see you are completely new here and have attempted a massive number of deletes before showing any signs of understanding policy "article lacks of significant references and external sources" is not a valid rationale for delete as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Valoem talk contrib 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Valoem: Do you have some sort of personal interest in this page? I am fully capable to understand what is important and what is garbage and non-encyclopedic content. Please, don't make it personal and lets focus on the page in question. thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Please provide reasonable arguments instead of questioning my knowledge or editing history.
- Keep No reason for deletion presented; I generally don't support nominations which sling accusations like 'low quality' and 'misleading' without any backup to bend a debate towards deletion. We have good existing sourcing here from what I see. Nate • ( chatter) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep bordering on a speedy keep per criteria 3 and possibly 2. There are many sources out there that could be used to improve the article, such as The Observer, Spectator, CNN], and more. Nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE and should withdraw this nomination to forestall a needless discussion. TheValeyard ( talk) 12:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - as a source the subject itself this is unreliable as they come. Whether it's notable is a matter of opinion since what is significant coverage is subjective here. Bearian ( talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's sort of famous for being famous. Committing to a keep Bearian ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I think they are notable, and i think there are sources to show it: beside the extensive NY Observer article mentioned above. Mew York Onserver]; there's the Verge's "WikiLeaks threatens Daily Dot journalists over report on missing Syria emails" [1]; Christian Science Monitor's "Making sense of an Anonymous feud with The Daily Dot" [2]; The Spectator, "Why is The Daily Dot, smooth and sassy website of ‘the internet community’, publishing racist nonsense?" (containing the line " No UK site integrates tech news into the broader culture so expertly.") [3]'; 'Austin American-Statesman' [4]; several references in the book Controversies in Digital Ethics edited by Amber Davisson, Paul Boot, Bloomsbury Publishing. And so on... The technique for finding these requires only patience--going thru Google page after page, spotting the 1 in 10 or 20 that are significant DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, prove through resources provide to be notable. Valoem talk contrib 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: a notable media outlet. Significant coverage in AdWeek, Politico, and Christian Science Monitor for a start. Marquardtika ( talk) 23:10, 16 March 2017 (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.
- 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. Meets WP:GNG. I'd advise the nominator to read through WP:NEXIST before they nominate another article. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Dot
- The Daily Dot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1. Significance 2. No credible references 3. Low quality digital content publication using misleading techniques to acquire new visitors Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Jone Rohne Nester ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment @ DGG: and @ Cunard:, I am look for expert opinions here, I believe the Daily Dot is considered WP:RS per this discussion, not sure though. I am not an expert in this field, but I do believe this as absolutely a notable news publication. Valoem talk contrib 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Valoem: "absolutely a notable news publication"? First of all , The Daily Dot is nowhere close to being a news publication (clickbait headlines, media driven content and lack of information). Secondly, this article lacks of significant references and external sources. Finally, no major investments in this company, no press coverage etc. In any case this is my personal opinion and I will leave it to decide to community whether this page should be deleted or not @ DGG: thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 17:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see you are completely new here and have attempted a massive number of deletes before showing any signs of understanding policy "article lacks of significant references and external sources" is not a valid rationale for delete as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Valoem talk contrib 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Valoem: Do you have some sort of personal interest in this page? I am fully capable to understand what is important and what is garbage and non-encyclopedic content. Please, don't make it personal and lets focus on the page in question. thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Please provide reasonable arguments instead of questioning my knowledge or editing history.
- Keep No reason for deletion presented; I generally don't support nominations which sling accusations like 'low quality' and 'misleading' without any backup to bend a debate towards deletion. We have good existing sourcing here from what I see. Nate • ( chatter) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep bordering on a speedy keep per criteria 3 and possibly 2. There are many sources out there that could be used to improve the article, such as The Observer, Spectator, CNN], and more. Nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE and should withdraw this nomination to forestall a needless discussion. TheValeyard ( talk) 12:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - as a source the subject itself this is unreliable as they come. Whether it's notable is a matter of opinion since what is significant coverage is subjective here. Bearian ( talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's sort of famous for being famous. Committing to a keep Bearian ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I think they are notable, and i think there are sources to show it: beside the extensive NY Observer article mentioned above. Mew York Onserver]; there's the Verge's "WikiLeaks threatens Daily Dot journalists over report on missing Syria emails" [1]; Christian Science Monitor's "Making sense of an Anonymous feud with The Daily Dot" [2]; The Spectator, "Why is The Daily Dot, smooth and sassy website of ‘the internet community’, publishing racist nonsense?" (containing the line " No UK site integrates tech news into the broader culture so expertly.") [3]'; 'Austin American-Statesman' [4]; several references in the book Controversies in Digital Ethics edited by Amber Davisson, Paul Boot, Bloomsbury Publishing. And so on... The technique for finding these requires only patience--going thru Google page after page, spotting the 1 in 10 or 20 that are significant DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, prove through resources provide to be notable. Valoem talk contrib 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: a notable media outlet. Significant coverage in AdWeek, Politico, and Christian Science Monitor for a start. Marquardtika ( talk) 23:10, 16 March 2017 (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.