Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllNovaScotia


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 17:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

AllNovaScotia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG
 * Delete As nominator. I see no evidence of notability whatsoever. The sources speak volumes IMO. "Ask ten people in Nova Scotia about AllNovaScotia and 8 (Parker Barss Donham says perhaps nine) people would say they've never heard of it..." The claim below that this is the second largest paper in the Province is wrong. Truro Daily News and Cape Breton Post (off the top of my head) EACH have a larger audience than 10,000. (The claim has since been removed.) Most of the references are schools and the like. The University of Wisconsin cite contains seven words at the end of the article and one (contrarian.ca) is a blog. (Blog reference has since been removed.) Hardly the stellar sources needed to warrant having the article kept IMO. Is this the floor of sources? No. I believe this is the ceiling.    Aloha27   talk  13:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Globe and Mail has one article discussing this outlet in detail. The Toronto Star (Kelly Toughill, Does democracy need newspapers? Maybe not so much, Fri Jan 22 2016) briefly mentions it in an opinion piece along with a number of similar outlets. I think if we had a few more articles like The Globe and Mail article, and from similarly prestigious sources, I would !vote Keep, but given the state of available sources at present, I don't think what currently exists meets the bar. (I will also note there is one relevant Google Scholar hit – Farahani, The Effects of Digital Media on the News Industry, Current Trends in Publishing (Tendances de l'édition): student compilation étudiante, however I don't think that is WP:RS since it is actually a journal composed of student essays, it doesn't appear to publish the work of anyone other than students in a particular course a the University of Ottawa; the other Google scholar hits don't seem to discuss this outlet in detail.) SJK (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.205.170 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The Columbia case study – while I agree the author is an academic from a respected school, the study gives no signs of being peer-reviewed, and doesn't appear to have been published in a journal or conference proceedings. Given those facts, I don't think it should be weighted highly in determining notability. SJK (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree that the sources are weaker than ideal and that it is a small outfit. It also appears to have considerable COI in the authoring of the article, but it is interesting, the sources are serious and trustworthy and this reads to me as far more notable than the great numbers of reality TV shows that seem to be able to claim notability.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Draft instead as this is still questionable and would need better notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. It's had significant coverage in journalism reviews such as the Nieman Journalism Lab, the King's Journalism Review, the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics as well as J Source. There's also a case study from Columbia's journalism school. This coverage shows that it is a significant publication that punches above its weight and it well-regarded in journalism circles. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 20:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of sources posted above by and an additional source found by using the Find sources template atop this discussion (see below). North America1000 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nieman Lab
 * King's Journalism Review
 * The Canadian Journalism Project
 * The Globe and Mail

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is solidly established by the sources listed by T.C.Haliburton and Northamerica1000. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that there are a few editors here that appear only to be voting for the most popular option to increase their own AfD statistics. This article certainly doesn't fail WP:GNG and I'm voting to keep this article; its sources are independent and verifiable and I believe it to be notable. The addition of more sources makes this a no-brainer. st170e talk 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is unfair to suggest that people who !vote differently are doing so due to lack of good faith or ulterior motives. I still am not convinced the sources here are strong enough. I am unconvinced "King's Journalism Review" is a reliable source since it is "written by fourth-year students in the Bachelor of Journalism (Honours) programme at the University of King's College School of Journalism in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada". It's basically just a compendium of university student essays, gives no indication of peer review or other widespread acceptance which would make it a good indicator of notability. The only source which convinces me is The Globe and Mail source, but that's just one article. A few more articles like the Globe and Mail article, and I'd change my !vote; none of the additional sources raised since I made it have convinced me to change my view. SJK (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Journalism Project article is republished from "King's Journalism Review", so again it's from a student publication. Not enough to convince me the site is notable. The Canadian Journalism Project is another "publish your undergraduate coursework" outlet see about. I don't think mention in such an outlet is enough for notability. SJK (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The University of Wisconsin Center for Journalism Ethics article – I am willing to accept this article as a reliable source, and also as evidence of notability of this publication. However, in terms of weight, I still don't think it rates very highly. It talks a lot about AllNovaScotia.com's founder, before saying that he "is currently the founder and publisher of allnovascotia.com, a successful, subscriber-based daily online business publication". That's all it has to say about this outlet – a sentence. It's not detailed/in-depth coverage of AllNovaScotia.com – it is detailed/in-depth coverage of other stuff its founder did before founding it. (But that info belongs on the article of its founder, not on this article.) Also this article is arguably not "Independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG) since it was originally published on AllNovaScotia.com. SJK (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2016 (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.