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. This is a prime example of WP:SNOW. Yes, I noticed the non-admin-closure by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) has been reverted but I do not think that running this AfD through the process is likely to create any other than more keep-!votes. I understand and echo the concerns raised by Collectonian (talk · contribs) but deleting this article will not solve the problem that the sources, which were demonstrated here to exist, are not in the article. Instead everyone participating here should take the time and just add those sources to improve the article and avoid further arguments, as I assume that Collectonian does not want the article deleted out of spite or personal preference. That said, I decided to be bold and close this discussion under WP:SK and WP:SNOW so that we can all concentrate on improving the articles rather than wasting any more time on a discussion where the result is clear even to the nominator. Regards SoWhy 12:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget[edit]

Engadget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable website. Fails WP:WEB and little more than an advertisement for the site. Failed endorsed prod; prod removed by admin under reason of "not promotional, & the Apple stock price story was a major event & there should be multple sources for it." Only so called sources for anything are Engadget itself, which is a blog. Nothing to back claim that it has "won several awards" nor that it meets any WP:N nor WP:WEB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Engadget has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,445, higher than its rival Gizmodo. This makes Engadget the most popular gadgets blog in the world. It's also been directly involved in enough events and controversies to warrant an article. Pretzels^Talk! 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa ranks are NOT a criteria of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Second that. Dubidub (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Pretzels on all points.  LinguistAtLarge  21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of xyr points have any basis in our policies and guidelines, note. So your rationale, as also the rationales of Neurolysis and Dubidub, have no weight at all, in fact. Cite sources to show that this web site, like any other subject here, has been independently documented in depth by identifiable people with reputations for fact checknig and accuracy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an in-depth report on Engadget, but it puts Engadget alongside Business Week, USA Today, PC World and CBS News as peers. Could it help reference the article?

      This is the second annual event that ShowStoppers will produce in Berlin at IFA, continuing press activities that began with IFA 2008. During 2008, ShowStoppers co-produced US press panels at the IFA International Press Preview in Majorca. Press panels in Berlin featured journalists and bloggers from Business Week, USA Today, Crunchgear, PC World, CBS News, eWeek, engadget, technologizer, Into Tomorrow and Robert Scoble.

       LinguistAtLarge  04:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are some more possible sources: Site of the week: Engadget (PC Magazine), Engadget's Ryan Block and Peter Rojas To Team On New Startup (Not about Engadget directly), When blogs get scoops: Engadget and CNET, Engadget Gets Facelift, Gives Gifts, Engadget seeks to regain trust after Apple blunder.  LinguistAtLarge  05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's one more source: Netbytes: Rapid-fire gadget blogs "More than 100,000 people are in Las Vegas for this week's Consumer Electronics Show, which is the highlight of the year for gadget freaks. But many more people who can't make it will be following the press conferences online at Engadget. Editor-in-chief Ryan Block usually blogs the main events live, with plenty of pictures. It's a hugely popular site. Last year, after it briefly carried an incorrect story about delays to Apple products based on an internal email, Apple's share price dropped by 3%. Not many publications have that sort of power." Now, the sources just have to be added to the article.  LinguistAtLarge  05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Also agree with Pretzels. — neuro^(talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but not solely per above. A simple search in gNews shows that Engadget is frequently referenced by many mainstream print and web media outlets, including coverage of the blog itself (see [1]). Notability is easily established. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all the Google News hits are links for this site, not about this site. By that argument, my blog is notable too. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. In my example above for instance, if the blog writers are subject-matter experts (in this case search engine optimization), then their may be considered reliable per WP:SPS (provided, of course, they are writing expert-related pieces and not some immature drabbling). MuZemike (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think sources are needed to show that they are, since Google News regularly pulls up very non-WP:RS blogs and forum postings along with real news sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've missed Collectonian's point entirely (although it's good to see that at least one editor is putting in the effort to make a proper case, for which I thank you). The point is that the web pages that xe is seeing don't document the web site. They refer to it. As such, they aren't sources for an encyclopaedia article, because they contain no reliably documented facts about the subject. It is evidence of actual sources that is required here. Citing just two independent sources that document this web site in depth — its history, ownership, purpose, and so forth — would do. The article currently has none, the nominator has clearly made an effort to look for some on Google News and come up with none, and no-one here opining keep has cited a single one. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Huh? This is clearly a very notable website. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An opinion of speedy keep requires the most supporting evidence, not the least as you have given here. It has to show that the nominator is acting in bad faith, for starters. A bare assertion that something should be speedily kept is actually the opposite of that. A nominator who has looked at the independent of the sources, and looked at what can (or cannot) be found by Google News, is clearly acting in good faith, and puttnig the project policies and guidelines into practice. I recommend that you follow the nominator's good example. Put policy into practice and make an argument that actually holds water with respect to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: cite multiple in-depth independent reliable sources to show that a properly sourced neutral article can be written and maintained. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No where in WP:SK does it say that the nominator has to be acting in bad faith. When the nomination has a snowball's chance in hell, that's grounds for Speedy Keep. And I'm amazed how frequently editors push WP:RS with total disregard for WP:UCS. I don't even read Engadget and I know it's a very notable website. I dread the day when Wikipedia gets so uptight that someone's gonna want "1 + 1 = 2" cited by a verifiable, reliable, independent source. And that's not an "if", that's a "when". --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:WEB. Certainly on point 3, possibly on 1. (Since I'd be suprised if they haven't won some sort of major award at some point). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-admin closure by Ecoleetage reverted by me, on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough, especially since there are outstanding unanswered requests for sources in the discussion (to which I've added some more), and that there is no grounds for speedy keep given that the nomination is clearly a good faith one. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Strong and speedy keep The reversion of the NAC was inappropriate. No one accused this of being a bad faith nomination, so the assertion questioning the value of the nomination is silly. Anyone who reads the article will see this site is owned by Time Warner, one of the world's most important and influential media giants -- this is not some middle school student's blog, but a significant web source by a significant company. Problems with references can be fixed in editing -- that is not the purpose of AfD. The site's influence within its sector has already been affirmed by the previous Keep !votes in this section, and attempts at speedy deletion and prodding were already swatted away. This article is on a one-way trip to preservation -- whether it is closed in two hours or two weeks, notability is affirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AfD opened at 21:04 on 16 December and was closed as a non-admin closure at 02:52 on 17 December. How did that become two hours? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Speedy keep is not limited to bad faith (its numbered criteria are introduced with "include", not "are limited to") and explicitly references WP:SNOW, which is obviously applicable. There is a consensus. The fact that it's been reached in hours not days indicates the strength of that consensus. Bongomatic 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Agree with all of the above. Johnfos (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This easily passes WP:RS and WP:N. It has ample coverage in multiple third party sources. This should have been closed already. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, Uncle G is correct about what is required for a "speedy keep". As for the call for third-party reliable sources, here goes:

  Sources that discuss the subject in at least some depth include:

  • an article in Forbes
  • an article in Wired
  • an article in Macworld
  • (not online) Collins, John. "Blog of the week www.engadget.com", Irish Times, 2007-05-25, p. 7.
  • No byline. "Internet site of the week", Bangkok Post, 2005-08-31.
  • Copeland, Michael V. (2007-11-12). "The blogs of war", Fortune, 156 (10): 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Paul but Uncle G is 100% wrong because he stated the NAC was inappropriate "on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough" -- either Uncle G needs a new wristwatch or he is using WP:IAR in regard to the basics of telling time! LOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme KEEP as the now proffered sources show the article meets all requirements of WP:N and the website surpasses the requirements of WP:WEB. With the greatest respects to Collectonion, whose works I admire, this article is a keeper. Again, and with respects, I recommend an early closure to this AfD as WP:Snow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, not a single one of those proffered sources are in the article itself, and somehow I suspect that when it gets its snow closure, they will still not be there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:14, 17 December 2008 (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.