Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabble.ca

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.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble.ca

Rabble.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:GNG, being associated with notable people doesn't give weight per WP:INHERITORG/WP:INHERITWEB, and fame/userbase≠notability per WP:INHERENTWEB. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The problem here isn't that the publication fails WP:GNG; it's that because it's been around for 20 years a lot of its GNG-building coverage doesn't Google well (Google is useless for finding media coverage older than a couple of years) and has to be retrieved from news archives. On a ProQuest search, however, I have this up to ten footnotes and counting, which is more than enough to salvage it. This isn't a topic that fails our notability standards, it's just an old article that didn't get improved to keep up with the evolution in our content standards since the article was first created in 2004, and it's now been significantly repaired. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in the article establish GNG. I count at least two reviews of the website itself. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I thank Bearcat for improving the article, judging from the additions made much of the coverage is pretty WP:ROUTINE and wouldn't count for WP:NORG. IMO, websites are organizations and should have to meet the appropriate guideline. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources found by Bearcat are enough for a GNG pass. The reviews of the website itself would clearly not be ROUTINE coverage in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.