Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onward State (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   no consensus. There's pretty much an irreconcilable difference in this discussion between those who consider the coverage significant, reliable and independent, and those who don't. The views on both sides are reasonable and evenly split. Mkativerata (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Onward State
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unofficial student-run blog on Penn State topics. The only basis for notability is winning a "Best Alternative Media Outlet" online poll at USNWR's side-blogs, not the main periodical. The website was not even substantially profiled. It was not selected on any other basis than online votes, which the blog attributed to "Facebook, families, a giant student body, a legitimately good blog." That's not significant coverage as require under WP:N. Fails Notability (web) to boot. GrapedApe (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: U.S. News & World Report is a notable magazine in print and online. Winning a poll against Yale is a sign of notability. To quote Kristen Karas' report from Collegian Online: Yale student Max Uhlenhuth, the self-described "go-to guy" for the Timothy Dwight blog, had expected his blog to win because it had been leading in the poll. "It was a rough loss," he said. "But Penn State has a great blog, so no hard feelings." Even their closest competitor admitted Penn State has a great blog. Pmresource (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, it was an online poll. Not a legitimate US News article.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has a blog and online polls. WP:SPS notes: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Pmresource (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Into Pennsylvania State University. The reference in US News & World Report was a one-shot mention - the blog does not appear to have generated any national (or even regional) notability beyond this single artiiacle. I might also add that the earlier AfD was improperly closed, with only one person participating in the discussion - it should have been extended until there was a proper debate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another mention from Mashable here. Pmresource (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which is not a reliable source as required by the general notability guideline: "... significant coverage in ''reliable sources ..."--GrapedApe (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. A quick look at Google Scholar will show you that Mashable is frequently cited in a widespread and consistent manner. It's a professional blog with editorial staff and credentialed members. Time Magazine noted Mashable as one the 25 best blogs in 2009. Mashable is not only reliable, it's notable as well. Also, Greg Ferenstein is a professional journalist that has results in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. This is a technology context where professional blogs are widely accepted as reliable sources by mainstream publications and the academe. Pmresource (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times also links to Mashable in its Other Technology Blogs section here. It's the 9th bullet in the first column. Pmresource (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By that interpretation, an article in Gawker or by Perez Hilton also passes WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If Gawker and Perez Hilton were noticed by Time Magazine, The New York Times and several academic papers in a non-trivial manner, then both will be reliable sources. Pmresource (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Time Magazine labels Gawker as one of the Most Overrated Blogs of 2009 while Mashable is one of the Top Blogs of 2009. Pmresource (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (or, alternatively, redirect to Penn State). Winning an online poll is a sign of notability? Absolutely not. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 08:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Other sources on Onward State. Public Broadcasting Service, No. 1 in public trust for 6 consecutive years according to a National Roper Survey. State College News found via Google News. The Student Newspaper Survival Guide by Rachele Kanigel found via Google Books. A Usability Analysis of Onward State found via Google Scholar (primary source). Pmresource (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the verifiable, independent, reliable sources listed above, subject essentially passes criteria 1, 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. Pmresource (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating your opinion three times doesn't manifest consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What has been presented was an elaboration in a discussion on the article, not multiple votes from the same editor. Pmresource (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree that an unscientific blog poll does not equal notability. The statecollege.com reference is biased as the site appears be to closely related to Penn State and includes links to Penn State and Onward State accessible from within the main menu of every page. The PBS link is also questionable since it is from PBS Mediashift, an organization that refers to Idea Lab as "it's sister blog" suggesting that it is itself a blog. Tejanse (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. They've been profiled in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a reliable source. http://chronicle.com/article/Extra-News-Blogs-by-Studen/63474/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wow. The sweeping conclusion here that all blogs are not reliable contradicts the spirit and bounds of the WP:IRS content guideline. Market Monetarism shows that this is a gross error. This topic has many reliable sources including the blogs. The Chronicle of Higher Education is also undeniable. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Almost closed this but I'll !vote instead to avoid the appearance of WP:SUPERVOTE. Arguments to delete don't take into account precedent that reliable sources can be published through blogs, or explain why this blog by the reliable source U.S. News & World Report is not reliable, other than that it is a blog. causa sui (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was covered: because the US News blog post is simply describing the results of an online poll. Are online polls indicators of notability?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Keep'": This site has garnered national attention for the coverage of the Sandusky case at Penn State by updating a continual liveblog with the latest events. Many people have sent out emails saying how proud they are of the site and how they are keeping an up-to-date look at this case both from student perspectives AND news.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.215.62 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or in the alternative redirect. The coverage is not sufficiently reliable and independent to warrant an article.  Although being formatted as a blog does not automatically render a source unreliable most blogs, even blogs hosted by major media companies, are not, in fact, reliable sources under wikipedia's definition of the term.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (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.