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. Arguments for deletion carried more weight, P&G-wise, and were more numerous than the mostly weak arguments for retention. Calls to "Userspace draftify", which I interpreted as Userfy, were not supported by an offer from any user to improve the article, and in any case would be better handled as a regular draft. I also saw no valid basis for the call to salt the page. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground News (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)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, been in place since March 2024 UnikumMitsu-bishi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Websites, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNG Urchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's enough WP:RS-based coverage here to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ground News is trying to fill an important function for us, there is always controversy about the news, bias in the media, pollution of the discussion. Let's not be excessively critical of this organization for their imperfections, we can all post comments throughout the unsociable media and call attention to places where we see room for improvement. If this article needs more sources, let's find some, not throw away what we have now. Bartimas2 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Bartimas2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please write in your own words why you'd like the article kept; first edit ever is to an AfD so it's likely definite this is not your first rodeo here. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' According to zerogpt, Bartimas2's comment was almost definitely written by a human. It's not a good rationale, but that's another issue. -- Mike 🗩 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable news aggregator; doesn't offer any coverage of its own and the sources read as PR rather than examining the product neutrally. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the service goal is valuable, they have a unique methodology. Methodologies can always be flawed and enough information and articles exist on them already. It is an actively changing news aggregation source and is worth watching. Fxober (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Okay, now type out a rationale in your own words, not whatever Gemini or Co-Pilot wrote for you. This is not a sentence written by a human, and I suspect by this account's past contributions that the creator is no longer controlling it. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's clearly not a valid argument. Badbluebus (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If this isn't WP:ILIKEIT I don't know what is. Departure– (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This keep is not policy-driven. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So basically, 2 people here who said keep (Sal2100, and Urchincrawler) made some good points over the fact that there's enough reliable sources (per WP:RS) and coverage to make it clear it was/is able to be to pass WP:GNG and therefore is able to be kept. Now is there stuff to improve in the article? Yes, there are stuff to improve on, but my opinion here still has some credibility. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NCORP applies to this page, so the bar is a little bit higher than just passing GNG (and even if it wasn't, I'm still not convinced that this page would pass GNG). This source [1] is reliable and covers the subject in some depth. This other one [2] discusses Ground News among multiple other products/companies, but it doesn't focus on it enough in order to indicate that it is notable (WP:ORGTRIV). This one [3] sounds exceedingly promotional, which is especially suspicious because this website has a big demographic of technology-interested potential customers for the product that Ground News is offering, it seems to fail WP:ORGIND. Badbluebus (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will say that I see WP:ORGIND as being a bit perplexing as there's no evidence I can find of a corporate relationship between these two companies. However DigitalTrend looks like churnalism to me so I'd rate its reliability low anyway. Especially for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Keep per two citations found byCharlieMehta below ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Delete It seems like an interesting startup but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON unfortunately. (If the decision is delete, and if the original contributor doesn't speak up and/or claim it, can someone WP:USERFY it into my sandbox? I'll check on new refs periodically. It is a good starting point if more sourcing appears in future.) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline here, and is considerably stricter than GNG. C F A 03:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Badbluebus. Fails NCORP. C F A 03:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Badbluebus. Fails NCORP and corresponding article is promotional like the press releases and other WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE it cites from. Of note, users voting Keep should probably be discarded if they do not provide a useful policy-focused decision. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Badbluebus' analysis. (a bit surprising considering how every single YouTuber was advertising this a while back) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has promise (and a massive marketing budget, given how often they sponsor youtubers) but I agree with anyone who says WP:TOOSOON ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userspace draftify per SageGreenRider. While my gut says keep and I do think WP:GNG is met, I do agree with the rationale that it is WP:TOOSOON and that WP:NCORP is not met. If this does become notable (which it likely will given their budget, but not to the point it should have a mainspace article), this article is an excellent starting point. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cannot find multiple reliable sources that discuss Ground News in-depth. -- Mike 🗩 12:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userspace draftify I concur that this likely weakly meets WP:GNG but not WP:NCORP but that doesn't mean a committed enough effort put through careful drafting and WP:AfC could not produce an article that meets WP:NCORP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ping @DV79, do you want to move it to your sandbox?

Draftify Delete and salt. Until more reliable sources are found, the notability is not enough for now. Better just wait for half a decade. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and salt? Why not just delete? C F A 03:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – clearly enough WP:RS. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a wikipedia page that lists (and briefly describes) news aggregation sites, because I can't find one:
  • The page "List of news aggregators" does not exist.

If articles like this are deleted, there should be (at the very least) a list of such sites. 2A00:23C6:ED81:2601:B91E:1FB0:DD7B:6F6A (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once reliable sources cover about the subject, then a deletion review might happen. For now, it doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I will go with following three sources: PLOS article, Beyond partisan filters: Can underreported news reduce issue polarization?, National Press Club's interview, How an ex-NASA engineer is fighting bias in media with Ground News, and IEEE Spectrum interview, Solving the Filter Bubble Problem With Smarter Feeds. Out of these, two of them are WP:INTERVIEWS. Important point to be considered: THREE is not a vetted policy/guideline. It is just an essay. Charlie (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good finds! I added them and will change my vote to Keep ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How does this meet WP:NCORP? Only one could be construed as addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth and its independence is questionable (I worked with Ground News to implement this experiment ... Ground News was not involved in the analysis of these data, but has had the chance to review this manuscript to ensure that their products and business are accurately described.). WP:MULTSOURCES says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. C F A 15:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think these sources will do for an article where WP:NCORP applies. The National Press article is mostly people associated with the company talking about it, not very independent. And the same applies to the IEEE interview. Badbluebus (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not deleting the article about "Ground News" because my 15 minutes of online research just now found 3 articles, in reliable sources, with more than tangential coverage of the topic:

1. This article in the journal PLOS One profiles "Ground News." https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ground+News%22#d=gs_qabs&t=1734124142036&u=%23p%3D2Ajb-t1iKl4J

2. This article in "Editor and Publisher" profiles the new "Ground News": https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/ground-news-allows-consumers-to-judge-the-news-for-themselves,1297

3. https://uwaterloo.ca/news/media/using-ai-cut-through-online-noise-and-source-unbiased-news

Doesn't the above suggest that the topic of the article is at least _somewhat_ notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avigreen18 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 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.