Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network World


 * 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 redirect to International Data Group. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Network World

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "well known trade journal, there should be no difficulty showing notability". 2 years down the road, nobody has added any new sources, and I don't see anything that would help support's DGG position. I am afraid that we need to cite sources that call this an important, well known publication, our own views are not sufficient. And all the article has so far are WP:PRIMARY sources, and claims of numerous awards, out of which the only ref is not for being a winner, but just one of 10 finalists for - non-notable awards from American Society of Business Publication Editors, an organization of dubious notability itself. I am afraid this will need a much better rationale for keeping, DGG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * fwiw ,I will deprod and send here when I think refs can be found by the greater exposure here,even if not necessarily by me. I however note we have no clear standards for technical magazines: GNG doesn't often hold except by stretching the definition of RS for N enormously;we solved that problem for scientific journals by using indexing in selective indexes, but that doesn't work well in this area.  DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You know I tried to get some discussion about trade journals going... but in any case, while I am all for including entries about important trade journals, we need some sort of measure to judge which are important, better than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. A single source that would call it an important publication would help... one would hope that some book about the related industry would mention it, for example. I tried looking for mention in Google Books, but it is spammed by copies of magazine itself, so I am not sure how to even go about checking if it is well cited, which could be some measure here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and add a mention at International Data Group. It's just one of far too many sub-magazines distributed by the same company. Network World appears to contain 100% syndicated articles from other IDG properties. Jergling (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is another frequent PR webhost and one that is frequently offered by advertisers here as "independent news" when it's far from it, there's nothing else to suggest what independent and genuine substance for an article, and it simply suffices as a IDG-owned company, the parent who has their own article. SwisterTwister   talk  03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to International Data Group, where it is mentioned and merge any reliable sources. This is a 30 year old trade journal and now website. It used to be a solid print magazine and has more recently become a web site with a mix articles and PR fluff. I share DGG's unease with deleting lots of trade journal articles. More than 100 WP articles link to this article. This is obviously a plausible search term, so at the very least, a redirect to its publisher is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sorry, but I don't see any notability criteria where the number of articles linked to the subject matter worth a damn. Nor does the longevity of a publication matter -- if that were a factor, there'd be any number of 100+ year old village weekly newspapers which would qualify.  If it was, at one point, a solid print magazine and trade journal, where are the reliable sources saying so?   Ravenswing   01:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But I was not talking about notability criteria, I was talking about redirect criteria. That it is linked from 100 articles makes this a plausible search term. --Mark viking (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to International Data Group; anything useful can be picked up from article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 November 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.