Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neowin (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 keep.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 13:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Neowin
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The previous AfD conducted about the article concluded that this blog was notable because of the number of Google hits it received. Now this is not part of WP:GNG, I do not think this blog has enough coverage by independent, reliable sources to be worthy of an article. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  pinktoebeans  (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  pinktoebeans  (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  pinktoebeans  (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm getting a lot of hits in my university library search. As a blog it's unusual in that peer reviewed journal articles and main stream media have quoted it as a source of information in a large number of publications since it began in 2000. What makes finding significant coverage difficult is that it is widely cited; so news, google books, scholarly publications, etc. that use it as a source are going to come up in large numbers to the point that it drowns out any coverage where Neowin is the main subject. To my mind, this indicates that it's a notable; simply because a blog rarely gets elevated to this degree within media and academia. 4meter4 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it has been quoted by a large number of peer reviewed articles and mainstream media.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:WEBCRIT The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 1 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.