Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SciTech (magazine)


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

SciTech (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Even though I find the lack of recent coverage concerning, I think the late 1990s-early 2000s coverage is enough to probably pass WP:NWEB. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites,  and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~  A412  talk! 18:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, and move to SciTechDaily. Although its URL has always been scitechdaily.com, the site was originally called Sci Tech Daily Review; it is currently called SciTechDaily (one word) but the name appears variously as SciTech Daily or Sci Tech Daily, making the search for coverage trickier than it may seem at first. Coverage establishing notability include the 1999 review in The Independent which rated Sci Tech Daily as "the best science news site" at the time – better than Science Daily, The New Scientist and Scientific American, "if you [could] accept its perfunctory design". More recently, there was an in-depth review in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries in 2015, which briefly covers the history of SciTechDaily; describes its format; and analyzes its content in comparison with Science Daily, noting that "SciTechDaily appears to edit sources more heavily for readability and publishes fewer articles overall and so may be preferred by those who find ScienceDaily overwhelming". The fact that it was nominated for a Webby led to a 2002 article in USA Today, about how the founder and her business partner set off 1,000 rockets in New Zealand to celebrate. There are many other reviews and articles recommending scitechdaily.com in newspapers such as The Courier Mail in Brisbane (2002) and The New York Times (1998) and again in 2000; industry trade publications such as Design News (2000); and academic journal articles such as The Lancet in 2000. These and other links have been added to the expanded article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that this SciTechDaily is a popular science website, the most relevant notability criteria is WP:WEBSITE rather than WP:NCORP. The sources listed above demonstrate that the website fulfills WP:WEBCRIT #1 and #2 (short list for Webby award). Request reconsideration of expanded article in light of the above. I have also added one more article from New Zealand Herald since yesterday about SciTechDaily following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as it clearly meets general notability.  Schwede 66  17:07, 15 April 2024 (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.