Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroundReport (3rd nomination)

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. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GroundReport

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

I have gone through each and every source of the article. None of the source is independent and reliable to make this website a notable one. Most of the sources are blog, and some sources are about other topics where the name of this GroundReport has been mentioned once or twice. Such trivial mention can not make a subject notable. - Mar11 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Mar11 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and the current article is not convincing enough to suggest keeping for better. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great deal of books and scholarly sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, reposting {{Find sources AFD}}, which is provided at the top of every AfD, is not a substitute for an actual argument pointing to actual sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. I'll list sources in very rough descending order (from most significant to least [but more than a passing mention]). The founder, Sterne, is also notable and has her own article already. I tried not to include articles which just mention GroundReport in an article about her, but am including articles which are primarily about her but also go into a bit more detail regarding GroundReport.
- ‘ Global Civil Society ’ and Alternative Online News: The Case of OhmyNews International and Groundreport in Media and Global Civil Society
- an article about Ground Report in a Russian language journal
- The Social Evolution of Citizen Journalism in Canadian Journal of Media Studies
- NYC's New 27-Year-Old Chief Digital Officer Explains To Us Exactly What Her Job Is in Business Insider
- Citizen Journalism Networks Stepping Up Editorial Standards at MediaShift
- The Rachel Sterne Papers in AdWeek
- 11 Citizen Journalism Websites You Should Know About at The Next Web
- A new genre of Journalism - Citizen Journalism in International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities
- Sites help students build portfolios in The Quill 98(2)
- Media convergence speeds up in The Register-Guard
- Important to note is that this doesn't include the many, many major news outlets that have run GroundReport stories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister and Mar11: Are these sufficient to change your mind? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those don't seem very in-depth. Some of them are basically trivial mentions, especially the NYT source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As that was at the bottom of the list, yes, that was the weakest of the bunch :P I've removed it. As far as being in depth, though... the three academic sources are in part or in whole about Ground Report (the name is even in the title of the first two, while in the third it's one of three sites that provides the basis of the study the paper is about). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 April 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.