Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EA WorldView

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 no consensus. Interesting discussion. It comes down to "what is best for the encyclopedia". Those who !vote "delete" have not given a strong case that deleting the article would improve the encyclopedia, they have instead made a strong case that WP:GNG is not met. It should be clearly shown why deleting verifiable information on what is used as a reliable source is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, there is also not consensus that keeping this article improves the encyclopedia, therefore the close as "no consensus".

This close does not contemplate whether or not the article contains biased language, an editing issue outside the scope of this deletion discussion as it appears it could be remedied without deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As per the analysis by Lopifalko at Talk:EA WorldView, this blog fails GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: as creator of the article I’m happy with the explanations as to why it does not meet the notability criteria. Kittycat55 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: I don't agree that the topic is insufficiently notable for a short article, as per my comments on the talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument at Talk:EA_WorldView appears to be that, to quote, "EAW is taken seriously as a source by reliable sources". You give a number of examples of reliable sources quoting EA WorldView. If EA WorldView is taken seriously in that manner, then it would be reasonable to use EA WorldView content for sourcing purposes. That is, we would be able to consider it a reliable source itself. I take no view on that point.

However, that is a different question to whether there should be an article about EA WorldView. There are many things that are reliable sources, but we don't have articles about them, and many things we do have articles about that are not reliable sources.

The question as to whether we should have an article is determined by WP:GNG. Notability is not achieved by others citing EA WorldView: it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" and "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I see nothing like that. Bondegezou (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on balance, it is better to have an article for those sources we consider reliable, so that reader ws will know what they are. this is especially important for sources from this region. Thisis of course not a formal criterion of notability , but I think its an appropriate exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you say, this is not a formal criterion of notability. I don't see any reason to re-write Wikipedia notability rules. There are many reliable sources that we don't have articles about. Nor is there even a consensus that this is a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The quoting is of the Professor, who may or may not be notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. If an article is created about him, this may be merged there. Article is also slightly promotional. wumbolo ^^^ 10:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why one has to wait for the BBC , or some such, to run entire articles on EA World View, before accepting an article on it as worth having. I know the GNG say 'the topic has to have significant coverage - but why would the BBC give significant coverage to EAWorldView per se, unless it were involved in some egregious scandal or something. I would say its frequent recourse to EAWorldView, and Scott Lucas, for informed comment is in itself a kind of ongoing endorsement of it/him as notable. Bob from Brockley has provided imo enough evidence of its notability on the talk page of the article.Dan the Plumber (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) As per DGG, you seem to be saying that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard notability criteria, so we should ignore Wikipedia's standard notability criteria. That's not generally how AfD is meant to work. (2) Brockley Bob shows some evidence of the site being used as a reliable source, but that's not the question before us. There are hundreds of reliable sources that we don't have articles about (and thousands of articles about things that are not reliable sources). (3) The BBC does not make frequent recourse to EA WorldView. It has never, as far as I can see, made any recourse to EAWorldView. It has on a few occasions used Prof Lucas for quotes in articles, but, as per Wumbolo, that may be reason for an article on Prof Lucas. It isn't a reason for an article on EA WorldView. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegzou - you're kind of splitting hairs if you say this for eg. isn't having recourse to EAWorldView[1]; you're absolutely right that I am similar in my reasoning for keeping the article to DGGs point of view. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mention of EA WorldView. The BBC don't cite something published in EA WorldView. They quote Lucas. Either way, doesn't matter, clearly doesn't meet GNG. Lots of things get mentioned on a BBC article but don't warrant articles. Lots of professors get quoted in the press. I've been quoted in the press. That doesn't mean the quoted person or the website they run meets notability criteria. This site doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor WP:WEBCRIT, nor Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#If_the_content_is_not_notable. I quote, "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves." Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The practical rule here is that we keep whatever we have consensus to keep. The notability criteria are only guidelines, not policy, and like all guidelines they are only general expectations, not fixed rules.They are expected to vary in individual cases, whenever people have consensus to do so. That's why we have these discussions.If they were applied mechanically, we wouldn't need to talk about it. There is a fundamental rule, which is that we try to do what is best for the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling guidelines "only general expectations" isn't quite right. Guidelines are usually followed and exceptions are rare. WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

There should be some reasoning behind exceptions. What makes EA WorldView exceptional? You argue above that "it is better to have an article for those sources we consider reliable, so that reader ws will know what they are." This is not some exception specifically to do with EA WorldView. There are large numbers (1000s?) of sources that we consider reliable, but we don't have articles about them. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus that we should "have an article for those sources we consider reliable", that would've been added to WP:GNG years ago and Wikipedia would look very different. (You do also add that "this is especially important for sources from this region", although that seems to me to fail under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)

Yes, we should respect consensus and that's why we're having this discussion. This discussion is not the place to introduce a broad new definition of what is notable ("sources we consider reliable", as you put it). We should respect WP:GNG. Best I can tell, nearly everyone in this discussion agrees this article fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. I find the arguments for keeping the page, which more or less concede that the subject does not meet our notability criteria and are based on IAR, to be unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2019 (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.