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 delete. SPA votes not based on policy or simple assertions discarded Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novara Media[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Novara Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG - the given secondary sources are just passing namechecks where Novara has been mentioned as an example or had one of their interviews quoted. It is not enough for the "significant coverage" of GNG. McGeddon (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Conducting this many interviews with notable figures, including Jeremy Corbyn should demonstrate its notability. AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a radio show, company is run on donations. Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Novara Media is more than a radio show, it also produces video and text content. Its online audience is significantly more engaged than that of other media projects (half a million unique readers of Novara Wire articles). The attention it has attracted from the national media over interviews it has published should further prove it's notability. The endorsements from the Institute for Public Policy Research, a prominent independent think tank, and the London Review of Books should also count in its favour. Liveartlegend (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Liveartlegend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. That is clearly incorrect factually speaking. It produces video and written stuff, and to a bigger audience than a lot of UK politics blogs already on Wikipedia. As for the donations part I don't understand why that is a problem, Wikipedia runs off donations! Mileyfan97 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Mileyfan97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This subject clearly does pass GNG: the subject is endorsed by independent sources such as the London Review of Books and IPPR. Moreover, it appears Novara Media was the source behind the major national story of Jeremy Corbyn and the possibility of an SNP deal (The Mirror and Daily Mail are referenced in the article) - I remember hearing about that one on the radio at the time!Disceaut (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Disceaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Rename to Fully automated luxury communism and improve. My interest in this issue was solicited on the basis of my knowledge of wikipedia process, and only my interest was solicited. My politics are tightly coaligned with this area, but apart from finding "machines of loving grace" to be very silly, I don't think this is a bias. Per Org notability ¶2 sent1 the importance of this organisation is bound up with this particular concept, and its "demonstrable effect" in UK political culture. I find the other sources are passing mentions of founders, or quotations by Novara output by other media: these are passing mentions. There may be other sources that do specifically discuss Novara and its importance, but they have not yet been demonstrated, find them. Or, if in future they become apparent, use them. The key source is The Guardian which describes the concept and the impact as notable. For a minor left concept, mention in the Guardian seems to be a winner. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - may not have been notable 3 years back but is picking up, a good site started by a known journalist..and also one of the very few news sites which licences its stuff under a free licence--Stemoc 05:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Local media organisation with broad, national coverage, has conducted interviews with a range of nationally important public figures (e.g., Jeremy Corbyn, opposition leader in Parliament), content is open licensed, includes radio, conventional journalism, TV, etc. On Facebook you have over 1,800 people "talking" about the organisation at this moment. Often small, quality media organisations are just not going to have the quantity of external references and sources that larger media organisations will have, but this does not invalidate their inclusion on the site.Dune Sherban (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no significant coverage of this media project in independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the sources used as references are affiliated with Novara Media, and accordingly do not establish notability. One phrase in a reliable source like the London Review of Books is puffed up into two sentences in the article, a tactic which hints at how thin the independent coverage is. The closing administrator will disregard, of course, the !votes from SPAs which are not based on policies and guidelines. A media project does not gain notability by interviewing notable people, whether Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. Notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the nomination, more sources have been added, and honestly I don't see the slightest problem, even prior. It's a notable organization, cited in reliable sources, that's more than a publicity flash-in-the pan.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see big problems with the "sources", they can't be used to establish notability, doesn't matter how many "sources" exist, most hardly count as a source of information about this organization. As of 13:22, 24 October 2015‎ (UTC) references 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are not independent, they either come from Bastani or his company, 24 is an interview with Bastini, that doesn't establish notability for his company, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 are mentions, and is not mentioned at all in the text of 23, might be mentioned in the video but it's not even worth watching at this point. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete perhaps move to draft space -- this MIGHT be redeemable... but in draft space first... Too many problems to clean up in main space. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2015 (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.