Talk:The Ditch (website)

Notability

It doesn't appear to meet notability in my opinion. It seems to be little more than a blog or a mouthpiece for Paddy Cosgrave. The majority of the mentions I can find of it are in passing rather than it being a full fledged news website like The Currency for example (which also doesn't have a WP page. Perhaps it will become more notable in time in which case it may be one for WP:TOOSOON. I'm likely going to nominate it as an article for deletion if there isn't some further information on it. Financefactz (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not a mouthpiece for Paddy Cosgrave doesn't really affect it's notability. The criteria set out in WP:Notability is, generally, whether or not reliable secondary sources discuss the subject of the article, and I believe the reliable sources I've already used show that. The gist of WP:TOOSOON relates to people and pieces of media that are predicted to be become relevant soon, but are not yet so. I don't think a strong case can be made that the article is predicting the Ditch will be notable, it's notable as it is right now, having caused two ministers of state to resign.

If you want to nom for deletion you can, but I'll make the same argument there that the website is already notable, not that it will be notable in future. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The page is starting to read almost as a press release but I will give it another few days before a nomination, there seems to be quite a bit of uncited information and personal opinion at the moment.Financefactz (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The page is starting to read almost as a press release

I'd like to make clear I'm neither "for" or "against" the Ditch, I've merely created an article for it because I do genuinely believe it to now be notable in Irish media circles. I would think it now comparable, at least, to Village (magazine), which also has an article. Notability is not based on the length of time the subject has existed, but as I said before, how much coverage it has from notable sources.

If you believe sections of the article are too favourable to the subject of the article, I'd genuinely welcome you either editing those passages to be more neutral in tone, or leaving maintenance tags on specific sentences, or quoting those specific passages here on the talk page, and we can discuss how to make them more neutral in tone, rather than a nomination for deletion being the first course of action.

To use a clunky metaphor, let's think of the article as a slab of marble, and instead of tossing the marble away because the current carving isn't as good as we like, let's have more people do additional carving.

Attempting to bring this up to standard, I would think, rather than deleting it, is the more Wikipedian type thing to do. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Advertisement

The page is reading increasingly like an advertisement for the website. If an editor has a close connection with the main editors or is one of the main editors or creators of the website then they should identify themselves. If they are paid by individuals related to the website they should also identify these payments in line with Wikipedia guidance.Financefactz (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to me or to another user? For the record and categorically: I do not have any conflict of interest here, paid or otherwise. Can you please point to the content you see as inappropriate? If it's in relation to McNeill, I'm simply of the view that he should briefly summarised in the same manner the other founders have been. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a decent article about a reasonably notable website that is now front page news in Ireland. Not written as an advertisement, and is notable. 31.187.2.95 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Financefactz I fail to see the problem here, and you've failed to elaborate on it. 84.203.119.34 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Next steps

I come late to this, but I think that by now there is no doubt about notability - this basic site and the investigative journalism behind it have had more impact than many other outlets in any comparable timescale. It does feel unbalanced, in an uneasy balance between (alleged) past promo aspects, and now maybe almost too much critique, but that can be worked on. But it does, for sure, need: 1) a policy-compliant image, if one can be found 2) coverage of the Niall Collins debate 3) more on its team / operation / merchandise - but should not be too long at this stage in its history. SeoR (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)