Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slate Star Codex

Slate Star Codex

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

Fails the General Notability Guideline because all sources located through a WP:BEFORE search are blogs or passing mentions. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required by the GNG, and let me pre-empt comments by saying that blogs are user-generated content and are therefore not considered reliable sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: Fails GNG and NWEB after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage; provided references consist of bare passing mentions. —Keφr 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous comments in this deletion discussion were written before I added a substantial new, referenced subsection to the article. Each of the mentions of the Slate Star Codex blog in the reliable sources may be relatively short – but together, they add up to enough material to sufficiently reliably source the current version of the article as of now. I would implore my fellow Wikipedia editors to employ their common sense here. Common sense suggests that if an otherwise roughly valid Wikipedia article can be written on a topic and reliably sourced, the topic satisfies one of the reasons for instituting the GNG in the first place – to exclude articles which could never be non-trivial if they were reliably sourced with currently-available sources, no matter how much they were improved. Also, the GNG does not actually say that coverage should be "in-depth", or should not be "passing mentions". It requires significant coverage, and says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So for the avoidance of doubt, it is OK, from the point of view of the GNG, that none of the independent sources cited have the SSC blog as their "main topic". What they do contain, collectively, is enough facts about the blog that are worthwhile to include in a Wikipedia article, to make it a non-trivial article. I think the current version of the article, as linked above, with over 700 words excluding references, counts as non-trivial. The GNG also explains: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Again, I think the intent of the guideline matters here, and I think the article is currently reasonably free of original research, which also being detailed, so that criterion seems to be satisfied sufficiently to make an article, which is what matters. --greenrd (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you've misinterpreted the GNG here. The term significant coverage in reliable, independent sources cannot be selectively cherry-picked. Sources must be found that contain significant coverage, and those sources must be both reliable and independent. All these conditions need to apply at once - and no, a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage". Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage"" - but why not? What do you base this belief on?--greenrd (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you can't cherry-pick. "Significant coverage" is a straightforward term, defined in the GNG as "more than a trivial mention." Trivial mentions don't suddenly morph into "significant coverage" just because there's a lot of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I should have spoken in a more lawyerly way. To be more precise, my full argument on this matter is actually (a) the letter of the GNG is met, the coverage of SSC in the reliable sources - such as this one - is mostly not trivial - but (b) I have a fallback argument if you don't agree with (a), which is that even if you don't think the coverage is non-trivial, their cumulative effect is non-trivial.--greenrd (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have referenced does not talk about the blog itself, rather it talks about a blog entry - the difference may seem ridiculously picky but Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that Notability cannot be inherited. As to the cumulative effect of lots of trivial articles somehow adding up to something non-trivial, I'm not sure how many times I need to keep repeating myself. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what is a blog but a collection of blog entries, an optional sidebar of links, and a usually-trivial About page? Come on! By your logic, no number of notable events in a person's life would make a biographical article about them pass the GNG, because the notability of the events that they notably participated in would not "transfer" to the person themselves! But that's ridiculous! The reality is that if a person is non-trivially covered participating in an event in reliable independent sources, it contributes towards that person's notability with respect to the GNG, and in the same way, if a blog post is non-trivially covered in reliable independent sources that explicitly mention the name of the blog or the blogger, I would argue, it contributes towards the notability of the blog with respect to the GNG. The non-inheritance of notability principle is meant to prevent things like a son inheriting his father's notability, or a restaurant inheriting its new proprietor's notability. --greenrd (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the GNG is straightforward. If you want to change it, then you'll need to head over to the appropriate forum and get it changed. Until then, articles have to meet its requirements. If this blog had coverage that meets the GNG I would have found it and !voted accordingly. I didn't find any - now let's not WP:BLUDGEON this point over & over, it's not going to change my mind because I've based my nomination on Wikipedia's policies, not my personal opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:Wait, I'm not following this. I think the Weekly Standard reference is insufficient for a WP article, but I've never seen the blog vs. blog entry notability distinction before. A blog is its blog entries. That's not inheritance as far as I can tell. Can you give an example of another AfD discussion where this distinction or a very similar one was drawn? Utsill (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utsill:As far as I can tell, they're saying that it's not enough for a news article to merely talk about a particular article on a blog - it has to talk about the blog as a whole. Of course, by this standard about half of List of blogs should be deleted... 2003:D4:FBC8:8047:900:5EE1:3907:49F6 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG taion (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete is well discussed in the blogosphere, but WP is not part of the blogosphere. Not now, anyway. If it were, this would pass GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet basic notability threshold.Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a blog with a handful of links from other blogs. Fails GNG Jsilter (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Slate Star Codex was referenced in the print edition of Reason magazine, which is not a blog, and in newspapers in a syndicated column by Bloomberg View columnist Noah Smith - also not blogs.--greenrd (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions are not significant coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If we can write a substantial, well-referenced article based entirely on putting together material from what you characterise as mere mentions, what's the problem? And, if so, are we now to delete all articles in Wikipedia that are based entirely on material from mere mentions - including other articles about websites and biographical articles? Be very careful what you wish for, would be my advice. You might find that the scope of this exacting interpretation of what is, after all, a Guideline, catches more than you would like.--greenrd (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What's with the deletionism? It's not like Wikipedia will run out of space. SCC is a fairly prominent blog whose content is mentioned in many places. Philosopher paper. Interdisciplinary paper. Ethics paper. ESP discussion book. Paul Bloom's Empathy book, which received widespread attention, cites it too. And so on. Deleet (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are passing mentions. Also, I'd remind you to assume good faith - it's not "deletionism" to request the removal of articles that don't meet the GNG, every editor should be working to improve Wikipedia. This isn't a repository for articles on non-notable subjects. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the entire notability is dependent upon one posting, not of particular importance . That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do worry people are falling into deletionism/dogpiling here, but my best search for multiple independent RS's covering SSC in significant coverage is nonetheless coming up short. I think the Weekly Standard and Vox references come close, but they're opinion pieces and few in number. Utsill (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]