Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edge on the Net


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Edge on the Net

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This reads like an advertisement for a non-notable media network. The lack of references doesn't help, and a Google search does not offer evidence of media industry leadership. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete .  Weak keep. This is a noteworthy network but like most publishers they will be in want of media coverage from other publishers, because they are the competition. If sources are found then you will have proven me wrong! Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I did find a couple of sources and 10 Years of Edge which makes a number of claims that would seem to 'edge' over GNG, like "EDGE launches world's first LGBT news app for iOS," "Network reaches 1,000,000 readers," and "Editors post 50,000th news story," "EDGE launches Android LGBT news app," "EDGE launches digital magazine to iPads," "EDGE launches 20+ LGBT Pride apps to iOS and Android," "EDGE reaches 2,500,000 readers." 2014, To-date LGBT news stories: 97,138. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these "claims" are backed up by any independent references. This link goes directly back to the EDGE website and not to any reliable news media. If anything, this further proves the lack of GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you actually tried to verify all of these claims and found there was no mention anywhere (online at least)? Or you just followed the link I provided which is clearly a primary source? And it has never been alleged that Edge is not a reliable source on itself, or anything else, so you're certainly mistaken there. Hard to imagine they are not the authority on how many news articles they've published. Again hard to understand, unless to show them in a negative light, why their competition, the rest of the media industry, would be publishing content on them. I think sources do exist but I imagine they will be elusive, and likely under different entities' names. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also The world's largest network of gay and lesbian news and entertainment portals seems notable enough, and no one has seriously questioned or provided anything to refute that assertion, which seems abundantly true. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Says who? No one has verified that claim. And I can name a half-dozen LGBT websites that have higher visibility and would most certainly deserve to make that grand claim. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has disputed it besides yourself either, please present proof that there exists any LGBT networks that are larger than this one, Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Please note that nothing has been presented in this discussion to independently confirm any of the claims made in the article that is being considered for deletion. This article misses WP:GNG by a mile. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of sources available to help improve the quality of this article and they are easily found in simple searches online. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Where are these sources? Can you add them to the article? I did a search prior to putting this up for AfD, and I found nothing to verify the company's notability as per WP:GNG. Or am I looking in the wrong place? And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:50, 14 January 2014 (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.