Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earmilk

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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For music magazines, especially online ones, I look to see how often it has been cited in other periodicals and books. In this case, the website has been cited only twice in its fifteen year history. It fails WP:NPERIODICAL #1 and #4 for sure. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:06, 6 December 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.