Wiki143:Articles for deletion/EphBlog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 delete. (sorry for the forgotten rationale, I have no idea why that happened) Well, this is a difficult close, that much is clear. Many keep !votes make good arguments that this subject is notable outside the limits of the campus. Yet, the delete !votes have argued correctly that while mentions of the subject are plenty, real coverage of it is scarce and is really limited to the "Williams Record" student newspaper. While student newspapers are usually considered reliable sources, those sources covering a subject that is affiliated with said university means that they are not really independent of the subject and thus should not be used to establish notability. And as pointed out by the delete !votes, no other reliable sources have provided any non-trivial coverage of the subject, i.e. coverage of the blog itself rather than what the blog reported. This does not mean that notability is non-achievable but currently it is borderline as DGG puts it but unfortunately for those arguing "keep" on the wrong side of the border. If reliable, third-party sources can be found that non-trivially cover the subject (and not what the subject has reported), a recreation of the article is not against the consensus here. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

EphBlog

Template:La – (View log)
(Template:Findsources)

Nonnotable website. It's a blog about Williams College, has only been mentioned in the campus paper and the local newspapers (and not as the subject of an article, just in passing), and appears not to be notable outside the Williams community. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; the sources cited are not independent of the subject and may not be reliable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Two of the sources cited ARE independent of Williams College: The Berkshire Eagle (which google news says has cited the source 5 times), and North Adams Transcript (4 times). And EphBlog itself is independent from Williams College, though it covers that beat. So independence of sources seems not to be an issue. --Milowent (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)--Milowent (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd assumed those sources to be school papers but I've gone and checked them out and you're correct. However, The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript (owned by the same company and servicing the same area) appear to have run the stories as "local interest" pieces, attributing no greater significance to them than that they happened to someone local. I see your argument, but on the other hand they're really on the level of "Local boy wins big in spelling bee" kind of coverage. I'm not sure the coverage is either significant or independent; the papers have a vested interest in providing a certain number of local interest stories regardless of their newsworthiness. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Local papers cover local stories, there's nothing new about that, and this blog seems to have broken a few stories of primarily local and alumni interest. I'd say the local papers are independent enough, but whether the coverage is significant I have trouble saying since I don't have pay-access to their archives.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So, we have established that at least two of the sources are "independent" of EphBlog and "reliable," The Eagle and The Transcript. (The fact that both papers are owned by the same company is no more relevant than the fact that The New York Times and The Boston Globe are.) Can we also agree that the Williams Record is as well? First, it is "independent" of EphBlog. (I am happy to provide further argument/evidence of this point if needed.) Second, it is "reliable." (It is true that it is a college newspaper, but my understanding is that college papers are treated as reliable by Wikipedia. Can anyone provide a citation to the contrary? I think that the usual dispute is whether or not they are independent of the schools that they cover.) Summary: We have three different reliable, independent sources each providing multiple articles which mention EphBlog. Once we have established that, we can move on to the question of whether or not these article meet the criteria of "significant coverage," which, I agree, is a trickier issue. David.Kane (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
DustFormsWords cites WP:N but I would think that, since EphBlog is a blog, that Web content is the more appropriate reference. Is that fair? Editors can check the page for themselves, but the key portion is "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria."
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
This phrasing is, obviously, not that different from the wording used in WP:N but I just wanted to highlight it to see if other editors agreed that this was the appropriate standard. The Eagle, Transcript and Record are all completely "independent of the site itself" and have referenced EphBlog in "multiple non-trivial published works." David.Kane (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:WEB is just a clarification of WP:N. The issues under your WP:WEB phrasing are that EphBlog has not been the "subject" of them - it's been referenced in passing - and whether the published works are "non-trivial". - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. Although some of the articles just mention EphBlog is passing, it is the central subject in, for example, these three[1][2][3]. In some of the other articles, EphBlog's importance is somewhere between passing and central. David.Kane (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'll give you that, the sources are good. Well done! Which leaves me with nothing but the feeling that a blog whose subject matter is confined entirely to the doings of a single educational institution simply cannot possibly be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not a very experienced editor, but I thought that the issue is not what you (or I) "considered notable." The issue is WP:N. EphBlog meets that standard. If you think it is a bad standard, then you should seek to change it, not delete this article. David.Kane (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, no - and I should say, I've got only the highest gratitude for the excellent contributions you've made to this debate, David.Kane, thank you! - but meeting WP:N only creates a presumption of notability. So something can meet WP:N and still, on its individual merits, not be notable. I'm arguing that that's the case here. It's a weak argument but not one entirely without worth. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. DustFormsWords said it best. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
But the sources are independent as the discussion following his !vote shows. --Milowent (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete If three small independent sources all write articles about the other two, that doesn't make any of them independently notable. That isn't exactly what's going on here, but that's the concept. Miami33139 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
First, whether the sources are "small" has nothing to do with the issue. Please read WP:N. Th sources must be reliable. We have established that they are. According to WP:N, there is no difference between an article in the Berkshire Eagle and an article in the New York Times. Both have equal standing as far as WP:N is concerned. (I admit that the standing of a college paper without a Wikipedia entry is more controversial.) Second, what does your hypothetical have to do with this case? We have three reliable sources, each of which has written about EphBlog on multiple occasions. Two of those sources have Wikipedia entries themselves! If they are reliable and independent, then what is the grounds for deletion? David.Kane (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not convinced that this subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue should not be whether you (or I) think that EphBlog is "notable enough." The issue is: Does EphBlog meet WP:N? I think it does. What specific aspects of WP:N do you think it fails? David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course I mean that the topic does not meet our notability guidelines. I don't care to be much more specific as I don't like how you're badgering editors whose opinion or judgment differs from your own. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies! Not my intention to badger. Please WP:AGF. In some of my comments above, I was merely trying to correct some mistakes about whether or not, for example, The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript were reliable sources, whether or not they are independent and so on. I am sorry if that came across as badgering. But now that those questions are settled (I think!), I really don't understand which specific aspect of WP:N we are missing. Would it be helpful to the discussion if I were to go through the points one by one? I am happy to do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - several of the local newspaper references fail validation. The blog is not mentioned as claimed. --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain what "fail validation" means? It is true that, for some of them, you need access to view them, either via a library or some other method. But they still exist and mention EphBlog, as this | Google News search demonstrates. EphBlog is mentioned in every article. Is there a specific article you have questions about? David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - sources have been added to article (which do reference EphBlog, not sure what Alastair Rae is referring to), seems sufficiently notable, and !votes for deletion are highly subjective, so I can't say it should be deleted. --Milowent (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - To establish that this blog is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, I think we need sources that are from beyond Williams College and its immediate surrounding area to discuss it (and that discussion needs to be more than a passing reference). This sounds like something that has gained some local notability, but is not notable in the wider world. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You are certainly correct that EphBlog is not "notable in the wider world." But WP:N does not require that. Indeed, if it did, tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages would need to be deleted! Recall the exact language of WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There is no requirement that a topic be notable at the state, national or international level. Local notability (with "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" is enough. David.Kane (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If local notability could never be enough, a majority of the local newspaper articles on wikipedia would be subject to deletion. This may be a slightly tougher case, though. I wonder, if EphBlog didn't have "blog" in its name if it would be faring better in this AfD, which isn't boding well for its survival.--Milowent (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't read the sources, but if that's all that can be gleaned from them, it's not enough. If someone can get a few hundred more words out of them, then I'd say keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify: By "few hundred more words," you mean adding to the length/detail of the EphBlog entry using the information provided in those news stories? David.Kane (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep based on expansion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article has sourcing from independent reliable sources. Subjective claims of "not notable enough" without reasoning are not persuasive.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - The reasoning behind those claims (or at least, my reasoning) is that, sources aside, a website dedicated entirely to the coverage of a single educational institution is inherently incapable of having the kind of cultural, professional, or academic impact necessary to be notable to any wider population than the parents and students of that institution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that EphBlog will never be "notable to any wider population than the parents and students of that institution" with the proviso that you include alumni, faculty, staff, and local residents. But, first, that is still around 30,000 people. Second, there is nothing in WP:N which references a concept like "wider population." The requirement is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It does not matter if only a few thousand people are interested in the subject. David.Kane (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Comments - As the main editor on this article, I have a few comments. First, many thanks for the comments and suggestions above. I have changed the article substantially over the last few days. Perhaps those who voted to delete might want to reconsider? Second, as part of this expansion, I have included many other sources that do not mention EphBlog specifically but do help to verify certain facts. An example is the footnote to the New York Times which confirms Professor Bean's denial of tenure. To be clear, that article does not mention EphBlog. (I did not want people to think that I was adding irrelevant sources in an attempt to confuse the issue.) EphBlog is only mentioned in three reliable sources and the coverage is only significant in some of those mentions. Third, I realize that many editors may not have access to the articles in The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript. I now have copies of those articles. If you contact me, I will send them to you. Thanks again for all the feedback. David.Kane (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

David, Unfortunately, the sources you added do not help us in this debate. The issue here is whether a website named EphBlog is notable. To do this, we have to establish that reliable sources have discussed or substantially commented upon the website. The sources you have added establish that other sources discuss the same issues that EphBlog does... but that makes the issues notable, not the website. What you need are sources that talk about EphBlog. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at the sources? I can send you the articles if you do not have access. At least three are about EphBlog explicitly. Start with | this article from 5 years ago. Several feature extensive discussions about EphBlog, even if EphBlog itself is not the main topic. David.Kane (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
David, your link simply points me to the references list at the Wikipedia article. Was there a specific reference you wanted me to look at? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The link I gave goes to the footnote to the Williams Record article "Ephblog provides alumni a medium for discussion," which is clearly about EphBlog itself. Now, obviously, this is just one article and there are some who dispute whether a college paper can be a reliable source. I can send you copies of the other articles if you like. I am happy to go through all the citations one-by-one, but this is the one to start with. David.Kane (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Overview of WP:N and EphBlog

Given some of the above discussion, perhaps it would be useful to go through the criteria provided by WP:N and the relevant links with regard to EphBlog.

  • If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

As I argue above, I think that EphBlog meets this standard easily, but we need to look at the meaning of each of these terms.

  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Of the dozen or so articles that mention EphBlog (some of those mentions are "trivial"), there are at least 3 in which it is the main topic and another 6 in which the mention is significant. (If it would be helpful, I am happy to go through the sources one-by-one to illustrate this.)

  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The three sources are The Berskshire Eagle, the North Adams Transcript and the Williams Record. The first two are clearly reliable sources. Indeed, the Eagle has won Pulitzer Prizes. The status of the Williams Record is somewhat less clear. It is a student-run college paper, so it is clearly less reliable then a professional paper. Still, Williams is leading liberal arts college and the Record is over 100 years old. I sought comments on this topic | here. I hesitate to summarize that discussion. My conclusion would be that, with regard to the facts that I have cited the Record for, it is a reliable source.

  • "Independent of the subject"''

I don't think that there is any debate that The Berskshire Eagle, the North Adams Transcript and the Williams Record are independent of EphBlog. As part of my additions to the article, I have added citations to EphBlog posts, but only as additional material. The substance of almost every single claim is backed up in a reliable source outside of EphBlog.

  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.

For now, this is all that I seek to demonstrate, that there is a presumption that EphBlog is a reasonable article. At least two editors above disagree with that presumption. If we can reach consensus on all the claims above, we can move on to a discussion about that presumption. It is also useful to consider the Web content specific criteria for notability. It seems to me that the citations that I have provided (more than 3 from each of 3 different, independent reliable sources) more than meet criteria 1) "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Note also that none of my citations are in categories that specifically excepted in this Wikipedia generally accepted standard. David.Kane (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, the only one that is about EphBlog is the article in the Williams Record. In the Birkshire Eagle and North Adams Transcript articles, EphBlog is often not mentioned at all or mentioned in passing. I see little evidence of that there is any significant coverage in other sources to establish the notability of the topic (ie EphBlog).
I will also note that User:David.Kane is likely to be the same David Kane that runs the webpage... No reason for him not to contribute... but please take the possibility of WP:COI into account. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
First, apologies for not making my involvement at EphBlog clear. Although I am not currently on the Board of Directors, I am heavily involved with the site, and with Williams College issues more generally. Feel free to consult my user history. Second, it is false to say that "EphBlog is often not mentioned at all" in the cited Eagle and Transcript articles. EphBlog is mentioned in virtually every one, as I have documented above. Third, just to specifically discuss the first two non-Record articles listed in the footnotes: 1) the "NBC probing Williams' admissions decision" is about EphBlog since NBC did all its probing on EphBlog, and 2) the "Williams College Environmental efforts met with mixed reactions" is about EphBlog since much of the "mixed reactions" are sourced to EphBlog. Now, of course, there is a spectrum of how much an article is "about" some specific subject. But please read WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In mo re than half of the articles cited, EphBlog is "more than a trivial mention." David.Kane (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you obviously have a very different conception of what constitutes "significant coverage" than I think is the norm. But I will let the closing admin decide which of us is correct. I stand by my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Using a WP:COI argument here runs the risk of dismissing an individual such as Rosa Parks, for sitting in the whites only section of a segregated bus, because she was self-interested and held a 'conflict of interest' "as a black." Rather, it is precisely David's position and POV that privileges him to forward the argument. KenThomas (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Google book search shows it was mentioned in two books, plus Google Scholar search showed three results, it publishing something worthy of scholary attention it seems. The news results seem sufficient enough to warrant inclusion. If it has 30,000 readers, than its notable, obviously, that larger than some mainstream newspapers get these days. Dream Focus 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Although I appreciate the keep vote, honesty compels me to note that there are not really any mentions in Google Scholar. Those are just links to articles that have copies stored at EphBlog. (We used them in our annual January seminar.) The book mentions are real. David.Kane (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
the book mentions are not real. they are just citing it as a reference: " "Sex Week was to take place from ... according to eph.blog. it is sponsored by the Womens Center of Williams College." is one, and "posted by the Big E on the thread ... (in ephBlog] " is the other. That's not evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Ladies and gentlemen, a rather tedious discussion of WP:N and other criteria & hairsplitting and, forbid, "provincialism" seems to be going on here-- as if Wikipedia were not a rather odd and small province of the s world, with a rather peculiar point-of-view, despite all its protestations to the contrary. As a visitor, I am not necessarily interested in learning the inflections of your odd local dialectical rules such as WP:N.

Instead of trying to apply formal criteria and hair-split from there, one might ask a substantive, rational question and reason from there. One such question might be: given that Wikipedia has unlimited space, is it relatively likely that, in the future, some user or user of the encyclopedia might, coming upon this 'ephblog' or some reference to it, consult the encyclopedia in order to clarify what this 'ephblog', is-- and thereby find help in their search for knowledge? If the answer to the above is vaguely 'yes,' then we should abandon all other niggling criteria and opt for inclusion. Criteria, after all, are only guide signs along the way. So forwarded. KenThomas (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete There are many types of blogs, but a blog of this type is like a campus newspaper. The main campus newspaper at a university or important college is generally notable, and sometimes unofficial ones can be too. Whether this one is is borderline. Most of the evidence given is that it covers notable things, which of course doesn't indicate much--that it covers them particularly well, is something rather hard to prove. That is referred to as a source twice ibooks is not substantial coverage--not everything listed as a reference in a published book is notable. The NYT reference is to the event it covered, not to the blog. FWIW, I think they do a very good job of it. And as for the closing admin, his job is not to decide which view is correct. His job is to decide what the consensus here thinks is correct. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is --one-- definition of the closing admin's function; there are others. In this case, it is very obvious that consensus of the commenters is unlikely. In that case, is the closing admin willing to --force-- the opinion of a weak majority onto, and above the objections of, a strong minority? KenThomas (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant provincialism. - DonCalo (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page). Explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies" David.Kane (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is really nothing more to say: it is irrelevant and provincial, written by someone who thinks Willamstown is the centre of the world and a clear WP:COI. - DonCalo (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Penso che la vostra ossessione con la mafia sia inoltre poco un provinciale, se non interessante. Che cosa di esso? But ephBlog's coverage is, actually, a little more wide-roaming; perhaps you have taken only a rather cursory look. KenThomas (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - of purely local interest, with a lack of sources from outside Williamstown - many of the sources are the blog itself, which obviously breaches WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
First, assume for a second that the closing admin decides to keep the article. There are currently 34 footnotes. 9 are to EphBlog itself. Assume that I would like to make the article better. Should I delete those 9 footnotes? The vast majority of Wikipedia entries in the category have footnotes to the individual blogs that they are describing. Second, those 9 footnotes are not meant to demonstrate notability. They are only used to footnote more of the details that are in the article. Third, I agree (as I have said above) that EphBlog is of only limited interest. If you are not one of the 30,000 or so people who went to Williams, work at Williams, have children who attend Williams or live in the local area, you are unlikely to care. But there are hundreds of thousands of articles in Wikipedia of "purely local interest," which is why WP:N does not require more-than-local interest. David.Kane (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've noted a few of the comments leaning delete because EphBlog's fame is primarily local to western Massachusetts, and was wondering about that. To a great extent, the publications covered on Wikpedia are local in nature - they either appear to a niche interest audience, like, for example, the soon-to-fold Gourmet (magazine), or a geographically local audience, like northern Canada's Yellowknifer newspaper (circulation circa. 6000) or The Royal Gazette (Bermuda's sole newspaper). Because EphBlog primarily is directed to the residents of northwestern Massachusetts and the Williams community, and has been referenced by other publications in that area, what substantively makes it not good for inclusion as compared to the Yellowknifer or The Royal Gazette? (I presume some people would say they should go too, but local paper articles are legion here.) Is it, in the end, just a subjective feel? When does "local fame" because non-local enough to merit coverage. I was wondering what people think.--Milowent (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
For me the issue is the depth of coverage, even in local newspapers. We have the Williams Record (which, being a collegiate newspaper, is on the boarderline for reliability) and two local papers that do not really discuss the topic (EphBlog) in any depth. Yes they mention it, but usually in passing and in the context of discussing another topic. If a local paper did an article all about EphBlog, then I might consider the website to have "local notability". Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess its another depth vs. number of references quandary, probably partially why, as KenThomas notes above, consensus is not developing. --Milowent (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I have very carefully considered the article in its present well-developed state. I am forced to conclude that much of the claims to fame of EphBlog do not rise to even the level of local notability. It is used by local reporters to get a glimpse into the feelings of the students without having to do some on-campus interviews. The Wendy Shalit book source is a mere mention. There is no analysis in any secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (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.
  1. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/EphBlog&oldid=8859226"