Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnHerd

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnHerd

[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)

There is virtually no substantive coverage of this website by news RS, which means it's neither notable nor is it possible to write a well-sourced article about the website. A search of mentions of UnHerd at the BBC, FT and the Guardian reveals no substantive mentions of this website (only off-hand mentions and in op-eds). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cited sources such as New Statesman and the The Spectator are notable and reliable and give substantive coverage of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be enough to start the article. As a source it has been cited by others and a few articles have been written about it. If things don't improve over the next few years then I would support removal at that time. I would rather err on the side of keeping it and deleting it later vs repeating something like the Donna Strickland case where an article was created, deleted then recreated later. Springee (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments about the notability established by the sources provided by Jweiss (or others to come) will help to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting is an inappropriate suggestion made at a heated political moment. This is a reputable - if newish - political magazine. Substantive coverage was easy to find, I added an article from Vice to the articles already mentioned by Jweiss11. The fact that the Press Gazette, the British trade magazine covering journalism, covers UnHerd is dispositive. WidenerStacks (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (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.