Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Nous


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Daily Nous

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:WEB, the sources provided are mere mentions, and there's no evidence of sufficient coverage of the right kind. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment It is a high-profile website within the philosophy community (and is even cited in the more formal literature), but finding secondary sources about it and its history might be difficult. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question The academic citations to it, the mentions the news, and its use in 133 pages here all suggest that we should say something about it. In other words, it's plausible that a reader will come across the name of the website and want to know what kind of website it is, and we'd be serving the public interest if we had a few lines on the topic. Is there a viable merge target? University of South Carolina seems like an odd fit, but not impossible. Category:Philosophy blogs doesn't have a main article, but if it did, this article could become a section in it. Unfortunately, the site's editor doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF by other means, so we can't really make a biography for him and merge this to it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a good hard search for sources and found none that were useful. I sympathize with XO's concerns, but if we don't have good sources, what could we really say about the blog that its about page doesn't? (Btw, that page claims that DN has been "reported about or cited in The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The New York Review of Books, The Financial Times, New York Magazine, Vox, and various other media outlets", but I didn't come across many of those in my searches.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. I lean toward inclusionism, and this page is notable enough (and earnest enough) within its own community to easily pass the bar as I see it. Unfortunately I'm forced to declare that it doesn't strike me as passing the bar that Wikipedia now implements, where we put so much emphasis on sourcing and so little on common sense (relatively speaking). Of course, if common sense was common, beggars would ride, and that is how we got here. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'll go with the common sense; the sources probably do not address it in detail but they indicate that the website is popular (and this and this) and we have enough secondary information about it. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NWEB.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (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.