Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop Site News

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. If someone wants to work on a version of this in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Site News

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG. Sources are either non-independent or focused on Ryan Grim. Could be redirected/merged but I am unsure which article a redirect should point to. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SIGCOV. A handful of references, most of which are articles covering Ryan Grim's departure from The Intercept. This Semafor reference, for example, does not even mention Drop Site News by name (~~its use as a reference for the claim "The Intercept provided startup funding for Drop Site News" therefore also fails verification~~ - has been fixed). Another reference belongs to CounterPunch, a generally unreliable source (WP:COUNTERPUNCH). Another reference, to The Hill, is merely an embedded 10-minute YouTube interview with Ryan Grim. Keeping WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:ARTN in mind, I should note that I'm unable to find any additional coverage in reliable sources. Almost every reliable (or somewhat-reliable...) source that even contains the text "Drop Site News" has apparently already been included in this article, as best I can tell. As it stands, Drop Site News lacks any kind of notability. A few mentions-in-passing and incredibly brief coverage do not suffice to establish notability. I see some mentions (in talk pages and edit descriptions) of the article's presumed future notability as further sources are anticipated to become available; I think, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this is WP:CRYSTAL and not a valid argument for keeping the article. If it becomes notable in the future, it can be recreated. As for the idea of a redirect, I don't think it would be appropriate at this time; instead, mention of Drop Site News could easily be relegated to a few sentences in the respective articles of Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill - I'd be open to being convinced otherwise, though! GhostOfNoMeme 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "...therefore also fails verification", sorry, I mixed up the references. Fixed. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well no problem — thanks for fixing. :) GhostOfNoMeme 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted elsewhere, I think it's on the edge of notability; I expect outlets like Columbia Journalism Review and Semafor to do in-depth coverage soon enough. I don't object to moving back to draftspace pending said coverage, I largely moved it back into mainspace because the person who originally drafted it was indefinitely blocked for UPE. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to it being moved to draft space until notability can be established. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable already with the two writers associated with it — Drop Site News is being searched for here and on the internet, which is how I reached the stub... _ _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Drop Site News does not become notable simply due to the notability of its staff or any other involved persons. See WP:NOTINHERITED. GhostOfNoMeme 15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since their launch, they've already done foreign reporting using sources within an influential terrorist organization. While that might be of questionable ethical value, depending on how one views the duties of a journalist, it definitely would seem to suggest that they're well-resourced and will continue to do notable cross-border coverage of one sort or another -- which, importantly, they have already done (in other words, we're not predicting the future here). I'd say the article should be kept, even if the outlet in question is unlikely to ever make it onto the list of neutral information sources for other articles. Drabconcert (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt they're in a good position to become notable. But per my response above, and others, they're not yet covered by a sufficient number of reliable sources in any real depth. WP:SIGCOV might not be far off, sure, but we aren't there yet. Just many WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I'd be happy to contribute to any draft article that arises. Currently, fails WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 21:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - notability is not established by reliable sources, it is not automatically inherited from its founders, and Wikipedia does not predict the future to say it might be established as notable later on, that's one of the functions of draftspace. The article in its current state is not really about the organization at all, it's a WP:COATRACK for Instagram's takedown of the interview with one of the founders, which happened before this organization even existed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as fails WP:GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON applies. Brief, trivial, or passing mention so far. Any context needed in a given article can be included in that article (e.g. "is a news website created by 2 guys"). Basically all we know from reliable, independent sources is that it exists, and was founded by 2 notable journalists. It went live less than a fortnight ago, it has only 2 reporters and 1 editor, and it's on based on a Substack platform, making it awfully close to, if not literally, a self-published source. Just as we don't immediately create articles on journalists just because their articles get published in notable outlets, we should not immediately create articles for every website/blog/substack/ created by notable journalists (far too many Wiki articles on outlets and journalists, even notable ones, become trivial, promotional showcases of "on this day, X published an article. Then a few days later, X published another article. Here's the title. Ain't that neat!"). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2024 (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.