Talk:WikiTribune/Archive 1

Notability
Why on earth does this have its own page? If I open a news site do I get a wikipedia page?! 88.98.252.76 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic is notable. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, let's not fool ourselves, the topic is not notable yet: you know, and I know, and the IP knows, that any other article about a site in this "closed beta" state would be, at best, put into Draft: namespace, and typically just AfD'd into oblivion until the site is actually active for the world to use and consistently cited in a much more WP:SUSTAINTED way. LjL (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that | being covered by CNN and several other major news media outlets would pass the notability test with flying colors. It may be a flash in the pan and an utter failure as a project (or not), but there is certainly plenty of secondary source material to draw upon to at least be able to get some reasonable facts.  It definitely would meet WP:NOTE standards typically used in an AfD situation.  That Jimmy Wales is banking on the credibility of Wikipedia to prop up the project is something more to be discussed at the WP:Village Pump and not here.  --Robert Horning (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What does Lily Cole know about journalism?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One can ask the same about a lot of so-called journalists who work for tabloid "newspapers" but since the notability of a news platform is not determined by who might be involved, what is your point? Regards  So Why  09:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The talk page guidelines indicate this should not be a place for discussion of the article topic, but only discussion of how to improve the article. This comment does not contain any discussion regarding how to improve the article. Suggest deletion of comment. --Kojones (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree about removing comments. This project is about some kind of transparency, isn't it? Not to violate Talk page or project guidelines, but the notability and qualifications of board members of the subject of the article should probably pertain at this point.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not for forum-commentary, but no need to violate the Trifecta. Folks that wish to make comments about the project should feel free to use User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, or whatever venue he recommends.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added some bare-URL refs to the AfD, if anybody would like to incorporate them into mainspace. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitribune, third keep-vote. I would do it myself but I have to get offline now, thanks 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion
I am new to Wikipedia. Wikitribune just made the news on CNN - so I am curious as to why this article states that it is subject for deletion? I will be sure to read up so I know how to edit articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singdeep (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's politics. However, the discussion at Articles for deletion/Wikitribune quickly resolved to keep the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, this seems biased as hell. I'd vote for a deletion.
 * A deletion discussion was held and the result was snow keep. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move to WikiTribune?
Should this page be moved to WikiTribune? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikitribune" seems to be the most common name. Even its own page refers to itself in this way most frequently (though it occasionally has other variations too). Andrew D. (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

--ED302 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)