Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyu Media (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. The one "delete" opinion apart from the nominator's is incomprehensible and therefore discounted.  Sandstein  08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyu Media
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources need checking if independent of the press releases - per spirit of WP:GNG / WP:RS. Churnalism should be avoided or excluded. If publishers being deemed RS is at odds with individual RS used in the article being independent, the wider consensus of GNG overrides WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of projects deeming them vetted. The first source I checked with duplicate detector indicates it is close paraphrasing of the PR, so is not independent. (I recognise churnalism is not PR, but for notability it should be considered) Widefox ; talk 22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Duplication detector analysis of checking press releases matches to the sources at Talk:Nyu Media :
 * "Total match candidates found: 214
 * "Matching phrases found: 16" Widefox ; talk 01:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lastly, tangential to AfD, see Talk:Nyu Media for my larger promo concern that we're dropping the ball here Widefox ; talk 01:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The last AfD closed as "no consensus" less than a week ago. The close rationale was not a carte blanche to renominate as soon as the article expanded. To the point, this article topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, as demonstrated by its current sourcing:
























 * Each of these sources has been vetted by the video games WikiProject at WP:VG/RS, and the individual articles discuss the actions of the company in detail. There is additional coverage for each of their actual games, which individually do not qualify for their own articles. The article that you noted for being similar to a press release (although still published at the discretion of a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking) has been covered by other outlets too. Happy to use their version if you'd prefer. You can find them and others with a simple search of the VGRS custom Google search linked from the page. You're welcome to deride this style of reporting with a pejorative such as "churnalism"—I'm not lauding it myself—but as long as the reporter is not affiliated with the subject and they are not recycling press releases wholesale (without editorial control), they are considered independent by WP standards. czar ⨹   23:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has successfully been recreated with the sources, satisfying the closing remark "without prejudice towards renomination after improvements/expansion based on the sources unearthed in the AfD"
 * Timing wise, this does feel accelerated
 * partly as we're past that considering it's been nommed for DYK (see Talk:Nyu Media for reaction to that)
 * Per WP:AFD you're meant to disclose being the creator
 * I was hoping the discussion would move forward to evaluate the quality of the sources more objectively, use of "churnalism" I believe is the correct term for sources paraphrasing press releases. Whether they are deemed RS or not may be subjective, something that we can decide and reason here objectively or qualitatively, hopefully without pejorative terms, I agree.
 * Acknowledge the sources have been vetted by VG/RS as a RS publisher. Needn't mention it again, as I got that the first AfD. All good. That is only one of the three meanings of source at WP:RS, and my nom is about "source" as the "the piece of work itself" not publisher.
 * My duplication detector analysis Talk:Nyu Media drives a coach through the argument that the vetted sources are automatically 100% independent (and does question fact checking, yes) as the first source I checked is close paraphrasing, so I considered it prudent to gather further opinions addressing my nom rational, which I hope is an improvement on the more subjective assessment of sources which polarised the previous AfD.
 * Based on that, I can understand editors who wish to detail vetted WP:VG/RS publishers and be done, quite understandably, but that doesn't address the concerns of this nom about "piece of work itself" per WP:RS. Widefox ; talk 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add. czar ⨹   01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This may not be the most appropriate forum to discuss the general question of how to determine when a news source crosses the line from sloppily using language directly from a press release to recycling a press release for "churnalistic" purposes. Rather, a discussion at WP:RSN may be in order. The duplication detector results presented here do suggest that one of the IndieGames.com articles has used a press release, but even if we exclude it the article is still left with 10 apparent RSes. Each of these would have to be knocked down in order to find that the topic fails GNG. I can agree that the sources need checking, but that's something that is supposed to occur WP:BEFORE nominating at AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. The logic is...by demonstrating that the first evaluated vetted VG/RS publisher article is not per se an independent RS article, the weighting put on them in the first AfD shifts, thus justifying the relisting. Cutting to the chase, a couple of the best sources is all that's needed to be singled out and checked, and I'm happy to withdraw. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for what is a RS article (for notability) can be challenged. Widefox ; talk 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Revisiting the first AfD I am not left with the impression that the outcome was based entirely on an understanding that the Indiegames source is independent. The discovery of facts that lead one to question whether a single source article (out of 11) is truly at arms length from the parent company is not justification for deletion of an entire article, especially when press releases are in fact citeable with caution per WP:SPS. AfD isn't intended to serve as an official fishing expedition into the integrity of the sources. AfD comes after such fishing has determined that all (or nearly all) of the sources are unuseable and further research has shown that no other RSes remain at large. I do support checking the sources against known press releases and excluding claims based on self-laudatory or opinion-heavy language originating in press releases. I am also willing to consider actual evidence against the existing sources if such is offered. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (see below) Widefox ; talk 01:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the sources found by Czar and Sattelizer. There's enough there to satisfy the GNG. Beyond that, its generally accepted that a renomination a week later is a little too soon. Not only hasty, but conceptually questionable as well; if there was no consensus to delete it a week ago, why would one think that a version that has only been improved upon, would fall on the side of delete? Sergecross73   msg me  17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (see comment below) Widefox ; talk 00:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (and source check) "different weight attributed to sources and analysis against WP:CORPDEPTH" was the closing remark. Regarding AfD timing, the Talk:Nyu Media is the reason. Revisiting after new analysis (with the new sources): Yeah it's a single source, the first source checked, refuting that they are all per se independent RS per WP:ORGIND. All but 8-10 are routine product announcements per spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH (although wording says "simple statements") Widefox ; talk 01:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Rs, echo, reuse, recycle.. much eh? I don't want to be left in doubt when confirming sources, so better delete for now.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I entirely follow what you're trying to say. Is this in reference to the content closely resembling press releases? I agree that press releases themselves wouldn't count as third party coverage...but regurgitating/paraphrasing them, sloppy or not, is still third party coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  18:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - the exact same user re-nominating the same article less than a month after the previous AfD was closed is potentially disruptive. My original argument still stands. (I'm was busy in real life so I couldn't comment here sooner BTW.) Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an inconsistency with this article - on one hand DYK nom as a new article, and on the other too close to prev AfD. This satisfies the closing remark (new sources), and DYK nom indicates finished editing. Summary Talk:Nyu Media is why the timing is so, with new analysis of the sources. There's a cause and effect here. Widefox ; talk 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what exactly at that link is supposed to justify renomination after a week's worth of time. It strikes me more of a case of WP:BLUDGEON or WP:STICK - more or less just trying again after you didn't get the result you wanted the first time. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been speedy closed yet... Sergecross73   msg me  04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See Comment above. That argument could apply to the reaction to the recreated article, the action of recreating it, the G11, or recreated deleted paid editing resulting in a DYK nom. To single out one isn't productive, when they all (apart from the paid editing) appear in good faith. In this polarised situation, we have an opportunity to discuss based on the quality of the new sources.
 * As for me, I'm only here due to WP:COIN, and it is our choice to to accept sloppy sources or not for notability, and accept this timeline narrative or not. How does the label churnalism apply to us if we do? Widefox ; talk 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the GNG or RS against your "churnalism", so your qualms about that are between you and the journalists, not a factor of this AFD. Czar has reworked the article, and it's not overly promotional, so I don't buy in to your COI arguments either. Multiple sources cover the topic in detail. That's all that matters. The rest is not handled in this venue. Sergecross73   msg me  04:37, 28 December 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.