Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edge on the Net (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is delete. There's quite clearly no proof of the sole claim to notability. I'm certain it's a positive org, but it still must be PROVEN to meet notability thresholds. D P  01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Edge on the Net
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An earlier AfD ended with no consensus, so I am bringing this back for a new round. This article is still burdened with problems: (1) it makes a thoroughly unsupported claim of being the world's largest LGBT digital network, (2) all but one of the sources are either self-serving press releases or are taken from obscure blogs that do not meet Wikipedia sourcing standards, and (3) the article, despite heavy editing, still looks like a promotional advertisement. I still have not seen any evidence to support the argument this subject comes close to WP:GNG requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly the article is not developing as hoped and many details are outdated by now. Plus that many claims remain unsubstantiated. The website doesn't seem to have established a unique source of local content as it claims, and most pages are rehash of general materials found much better in other websites. Probably the site itself deserves to be in a listing containing major gay websites, but nothing more than that. I have no objection of deleting it or directing it to a more general page of online LGBT content sites. werldwayd (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sure why the rush to delete this 3 weeks after the last attempt to remove the article, I guess we'll be back every month? There is a systematic bias against the subject. Firstly it's a media outlet so the few sources that are likely to exist, are the competition, who are reluctant to do anything but report on scandal of the competition. Secondly this is a LGBT media outlet, these media ventures, like many minority news organizations, exist in micro markets, and are also almost never reported on. No one has refuted any of the claims made, nor any evidence that they are exaggerated. I would go as far to say that this is likely one of the only LGBT media networks in the world, I've never heard of any others but they may exist. There is actually very few multistate LGBT-focussed companies. Unless there is evidence that the Edge Network is not an expert on themselves, I'm reluctant to keep their accomplishments out of the article as long as they are attributed to them. Essentially what few sources that are likely to even exist online, all support exactly what we are reporting. The rest remains simply ensuring we report NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Just a brief comment on Sportfan5000 saying: "why the rush to delete this 3 weeks after the last attempt to remove the article, I guess we'll be back every month?". I completely sympathize with you on this. Articles should not be subjected to repeated deletion requests immediately after a decision has been taken either way. Perhaps this is not the forum, but I support and have always been in favour of setting a "courtesy period" which I suggest be set let's say at 6 months before engaging on a second request for deletion. Exceptions might be set on articles that contain contentious material that may be perceived as harmful to the individual concerned, in which case earlier deletion requests may be justified. But in all fairness, the earlier discussion on the previous AfD request did not generate enough discussion and was more like a points and counterpoints by colleagues And Adoil Descended and Sportfan5000 and no other editor did take part, except for a brief comment by colleague Cirt, who was in favour of keeping the article suggesting improving the article instead of deleting it. werldwayd (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate Werldwayd's consideration on having this subject brought back to AfD - the previous discussion ended inconclusively and with virtually no input from the wider Wikipedia community. And while subsequent attempts were made to strengthen the article, these efforts nonetheless exposed the core weaknesses in the subject's very obvious lack of notability. In regard to Sportsfan5000's arguments: (1) There is no systematic bias here. Other U.S. based LGBT-oriented media outlets (including Out, The Advocate, PlanetOut and LOGO TV) have been the subject of considerable independent coverage that confirms their notability, whereas Edge on the Net has not received any level of attention that its competition received. (2) The notion that the very grand claims in this article must be true because no one refuted them is completely antithetical to the core editorial principles of Wikipedia, which are based on presenting encyclopedic facts supported by proper references. Just because no one challenges a whopper of a boast does not mean the boast is accurate - and this website has seen plenty of hoax articles because people were either unaware or indifferent to the nutty claims made in the articles. If something is factually correct, then there will be an independent source to verify it - that is not happening here. (3) As for the claim that this might be one of the only LGBT media networks in the world, I would recommend visiting the Wikipedia category "LGBT-related media by country." This category's contents refute any notion that Edge is doing something unique in terms of LGBT media. Ultimately, we need to adhere to WP:NOT guidelines, which state: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This article fails to meet WP:INTERNET requirements, and we have to stop making weak excuses to absolve its very obvious deficiencies. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the comparisons are not on par. This network was formed after a media revolution that decimated many LGBT publications, and is one of the few, if not the only LGBT news/media networks I've even heard of. And their competition is both any LGBT website not in their network, as well as any other website that does news, so, everyone else. And comparisons to LGBT magazines, websites, and cable channels is also not helpful, although every one of them, including Edge, is a pioneer in their field. They're just different fields. As for related comparisons, please find in LGBT-related media by country categories, or anywhere else, an actual company that is doing this work in the LGBT field. I haven't found one yet. The closest i have seen was Rex Wockner's syndicated column which has gone defunct because … the mass media changes around a decade ago when Edge emerged. Similar to how the emergence of Amazon changed how books were sold, we've seen dramatic shifts in how news, and LGBT culture, is produced and shared. Also, i have just unearthed a current court case, BWP Media USA Inc. v. EDGE Publications, Inc. which will likely result in some of the scandal about the competition press coverage I mentioned. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * I am sorry, but this is a highly subjective rewriting of LGBT media history that overlooks the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's basic editorial standards. If Edge is a pioneer, then its groundbreaking efforts appear to have been made in total secrecy, because there is no independent verification of the website's importance. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. And as any likely coverage would be by the competition, unlikely unless scandal breaks out, or by the very leading LGBT publications in the Edge network, thus considered at least somewhat compromised, this new media company likely needs to be seen through updated filters as traditional print media is just unlikely to give them free advertising. That's the rule in news journalism, not the exception. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]


 * Delete There's no independent coverage of this site by notable media outlets. "World's largest digital network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) news and entertainment portals" claim is patently ludicrious. --Atlantictire (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain, "'World's largest digital network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) news and entertainment portals' claim is patently ludicrous." Have you any evidence that they are not? Do you have any information on other ones that we can compare? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Comment If this statement about being the world's largest digital LGBT network was supported by fact, there would be independent verification to back it up and this AfD would never be happening. As it stands, there is nothing but an elaborate claim that sounds very fishy, at best. This is why Wikipedia requires that claims be backed up by facts. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree for all the reasons already put forth. That's just false reasoning - that because it's only in primary sources, news sources by the way, it must be false. It's also worth noting the in each city the Edge partners with the leading LGBT publications, like the Dallas Voice in Dallas, and the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco. Are you really suggesting these publications, the biggest and oldest LGBT news publications in the world, are a part of this network, and their collective effort is simply not notable because they don't write enough about themselves, and haven't gotten their competition to do so as well? This is a new development in LGBT news coverage, an industry that is only several decades old. You still haven't addressed my questions, did you find any other LGBT news network that we can compare this to? I think they may be the only one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]


 * Keep. The prior AFD closed quite recently. I agree with that this 2nd AFD nomination seems way too early and premature. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As stated earlier, the previous AfD ended with no consensus and almost no participation. I see no harm in resuming the conversation and inviting more people to offer their opinions. In any event, there is no Wikipedia guideline on the amount of time between the closure of one AfD and the opening of a second AfD. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive, and needless. There is nothing to suggest that anything we have in the article is not true, just that it's under sourced. Any basic searching would quickly show this is a nation-wide online network. Even if relying on many primary sources, the subject is inherently notable as likely being the only, and certainly largest LGBT news network in existence, in the entire world. This is unsurprising in an industry for a minority population that has only come into modern existence less than 50 years ago, and has only in the past few years gained footing for equal human rights in the past three years. I'm puzzled why you think other news publications would be giving them any coverage at all. That generally only happens when there are scandals, and awards won. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * These arguments are phony and distracting, and they ignore Wikipedia guidelines. An article with wildly unsubstantiated claims that has no respectable sourcing with needs to go, period. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides the one claim, which has yet to be refuted on any level, could you please explain the other "wildly unsubstantiated claims?" Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]


 * Strong Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. I am surprised it remained online so long. Wefihe (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested it meets CORP, but per WEB, it is notable and of historical significance, as the first and only of its kind in the LGBT publishing world. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Says who? You're the only person who keeps insisting that. And the fact is fails CORP is, on its own terms, an excellent reason to give it the hook. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My WP:Brain has made it clear to me. The unanswered question to you remains, what other LGBT news networks are you aware of that we can even compare? I have looked, and almost nothing compares. Rex Wockner has a syndicated column that delivered this news worldwide but that work is defunct now, largely thanks to the Internet. Other entities have owned several LGBT newspapers at once but they were not networks at all. It's hard to compare Edge against their competition when there doesn't seem to be any. They have created a new business model for a relatively young LGBT news industry. This has never been presented as a CORP, but likely we could churn up lots of blasé information on the corporation papers and such. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Comment. I'm still looking through through (thousands) of possible sources as the Edge name is so generic it pulls in many false positives. The businesses each operate under their own names but there does not seem to be a uniformity except to direct users to each of their main pages. The company has been known and reported under at least 4 names, Edge being about the most common. I will also look into searching under sources for just the app, but that is an unknown area to me so will take a bit longer. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The nominator hit it square on the head. Failure of WP:WEB and WP:CORP. 68.9.121.226 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * — 68.9.121.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. Someone might have neglected to sign in, or didn't want to be identified with seeking the article's deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's for the closing admin to decide. As someone who has closed more AfDs than you have edits, I can assure you that such information is both useful, and not by any means decisive.  It simply provides indications of where to probe more deeply. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: The LGBTJA article is a decent enough reference, but there's nothing else that's been presented in either AfD, nor was I able to find via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks, or Highbeam, an additional reliable independent source that would evidence notability under WP:GNG.  I'm not happy about such a quick repetition of AfDs, nor am I impressed by impassioned pleas to WP:AN, something smells here even if I can't put my finger on it. But I do think the evidence points toward deletion. Additional sources welcomed, as always.--j⚛e deckertalk 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I can't comment on what is in Joe's nasal passages, I can state that a request for closure (singular, not plural, and not "impassioned" by any degree) was done strictly because it appeared the discussion was being overly dominated by two personalities and input might be discouraged because of that. Nothing more, nothing less. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, perhaps WP:IAR applies here, as my questions to the nominator has gone unanswered and unresolved. I have found zero evidence that this is not the only LGBT news network in the world, and unlikely to be reported on by its competition, that would undoubtably be reliable sources. In fact, nothing even close to an LGBT news network has been presented, and i see nothing to suggest any others even exist. The entire article is supported by sources, and no original research has been employed, the basis for concern with sourcing. If this conundrum isn't resolved in this conversation, what we have is a situation which then violates NPOV, by not reporting on something that is, in fact, a notable entity. We would be purposefully creating a gap in the history of LGBT news publications. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * Comment to comment This is why I requested closure, because we are going in circles. Again: (1) there is no evidence that this is the only LGBT news network in the world. If this was the case, surely there must be at least one independent source to verify that claim? Wouldn't the New York Times or another major newspaper have mentioned this in an article about LGBT media? (2) The sources in the article (with one exception) are either press releases issued by Edge or they come from blogs that are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia sources. This is one of the worst sourced articles I've come across here. (3) Deleting this would not leave a gap in reporting the history of LGBT news publications - Edge began in 2004, according to the article, which means that it wasn't the first online LGBT media source, nor was it the first national U.S. LGBT media source. And, again, there is no evidence to support the claim that it is the largest of its kind. I have seen no proof of historical value here. And (4), as someone already pointed out, the article is nowhere near WP:CORP requirements, so this focus on a company running a business can't work. Maybe, in fairness, the article can be redirected to another Wikipedia article on LGBT media history, with a properly referenced paragraph or two to mention Edge. But as a standalone article, it just doesn't stand up. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reading things into my statements that aren't there or are not intended. I never suggested they were the first LGBT news group or national news organization. They are the only LGBT news network, none other seems to exist. So removing this chapter does create a needless gap of information. There have been websites, and national LGBT news magazines but they no longer exist, and they were not networks. This is the first of its kind. And why would NYT or anyone write about the competition? In general they do so when there is scandal. Edge has been generally successful and boring. They are also IMHO, poorly named as many entitle use "edge publications," and "edge media" in their titles. I think the article meets GNG, and have never suggested they meet CORP, so that is another false argument. And to your last point there is no other articles on LGBT media, and that's a tough subject to write on, like a lot of LGBT history, as sources on the subject, are generally rare and sparse. It's just not a well researched subject, even though LGBT news publications have mirrored LGBT communities. More have gone under than have existed as far as I can tell. And there is only one organization, National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, for professionals in the field. They didn't start a hall of fame until 2005. Wikipedia has a huge gap in reporting in this subject area and removing this content would be adding to that deficit. Systemic bias says it better than i. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 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.