Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprudge

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sprudge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm on the fence on this one, and you might even count me as neutral unless I'm convinced otherwise, but the included sources for this article don't pass WP:SIGCOV on their own, excepting perhaps the coverage of the event involving Bitter Barista, which seems to be referenced a few times in association with Sprudge. The reason I am not sure is that although I haven't found very convincing sigcov sources, I have found several instances where other news orgs have referenced Sprudge, lending them at least a degree of credibility: eater 1 eater 2 capitol hill seattle robb report tasting table the verge fox news

I was nearly going to just remove the notability tag but I know the requirement for significant coverage needs to be met, so I figured it's worth at least testing here. ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, Websites, United States of America, and Oregon. ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am inclined to delete due to poor sourcing and formatting, but I am open-minded. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject by sources seems to be the doxing of "The Bitter Barista", what about a topic change? "2017 Webby Award Honoree" (for what it's worth) might influence Notability (web). IgelRM (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see strong arguments for either Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on coverage and recognition received, plus use by Eater and other other media outlets. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. Noms source assessment is correct, there are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This argument relies on some good faith, but the use of Sprudge by various media outlets suggests that it is a significant website for the industry. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a source can be unreliable itself, yet still be notable. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean above, but can you post links the three best sources you found, I'll take a second look. // Timothy :: talk 13:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The most reliable sources all appear to be about the firing, rather than directly about the subject itself. But it's use by other sources within its topic area, are a positive. It's close to keep, of not completely there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 5 May 2023 (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.