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. General consensus. ( non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 12:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Panoply Media

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

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

Subject has no independent sources. Once you strip away Slate (the new owners of Panoply) and you take away the interviews of Panoply personnel you have nothing left. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Article is a stub. Deletion is the easy route. Turning resources like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], or [14] into an encylopedic article means doing the harder work of being a good editor. Options and their likely outcomes as I see them:

1. Delete this article now, and it will be recreated as Panoply media grows.
2. Turn it into a redirect page to Slate Magazine and when someone wants to turn Panoply Media unto a proper article, the RD page will serve as a placeholder.
3. Do the work of a good Wikipedia editor and turn this into a fully flushed out article right now.

The outcome will be the same either way. It's all a matter of who does the work and when. Morganfitzp ( talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

FYI: I created the page as a redirect to Slate Magazine, which was option 2 from above. Other editors may have jumped the gun in in going for option 3. That said, actual deletion seems silly. Morganfitzp ( talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, or merge to Slate (magazine)#Podcasts, although the majority of Panoply podcasts are produced by other companies. Regarding sources, only two sources are from Slate, the rest are independent. For what it's worth, I'm the author of this article. -- Hirsutism ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep in light of Hirsutism's work on it from the past week in moving it from stub-class to start-class. Given that Panoply's structure as a Slate-run company in partnership with many notable media outlets (Buzzfeed, MTV, WSJ) I think it's worthy of more than just a merge. Morganfitzp ( talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh, but now another editor has nixed half that content, citing Wikipedia:WTAF. Morganfitzp ( talk) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources (NYT, Rueters, Bloomberg, Financial Times) and just because something needs work, it doesn't mean you should delete it. The United States was a stub once. Every article starts out as a stub, and if they were deleted just because someone couldn't spend the time to expand them there would be next to nothing on Wikipedia. Delete articles because they are not notable, not because they need work. Eddie891 ( talk) 13:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just because Slate owns Panoply, it does not mean that they are no longer reliable. While they are likely to be biased, Slate can, in my opinion still be used to source material that is not able to be argued about, such as when Panoply acquired the Audiometric software platform and Slate reported on it. Eddie891 ( talk) 14:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Reliability isn't the issue; notability is. No one has provided sources that make a case for general notability just a bunch of mere mentions. I don't agree with your apparent inclusionism. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

While I see your point, could you please tell me how articles with titles like "Slate's Panoply platform is serious about podcasts" (Mashable) "Slate and Malcolm Gladwell Aim to Become the Next Serial: The Slate Group's podcasting network, Panoply, is hoping its new show, Revisionist History, will be a huge hit" (Bloomberg) "Panoply launches advertising technology for podcasts" (Financial Times) and "Guide to Podcasting" (Tow Center for digital journalism) (this article "explores the myriad ways these philosophies play out in four case studies: PRX’s Reveal, Gimlet Media, BuzzFeed, and Panoply.") are "mere mentions" Eddie891 ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

A tag on an article can be interpreted in many ways. One inference is that the tag is saying, "This article sucks and is therefore unworthy," and another inference has the tag saying, "You are invited to improve this article." I lean toward the latter, hoping that editors who dutifully/habitually tag articles are saying, "I think this article could be improved and I defer to someone with expertise on this subject to do so," and not, "This article could be improved, but I'm just too lazy to actually do it." In short, assume good faith. Morganfitzp ( talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (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.