This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is shaping up but is still too self-referential[edit]
I know it's difficult to write an article about a small news organization and not include links from said news organization, but this article will have more legitimacy the more outside credible sources (and fewer internal) it cites. Mistipolis (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is well-sourced. When The Lever reporting is cited multiple times by the New York Times and other news outlets, this indicates that The Lever is considered a reliable source of news by these outlets. This is backed up by three independent third-party sources: The Izzy Award, The BRASS Business Guide, and the article by Brian Stelter. This is solid sourcing, IMHO. Of course, additional sourcing is always good. Dorje108 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dorje, I promise I'm not trying to make this harder, I just want to see the page succeed. I went through the whole process when I created the Wiki for Rising (web series) which was in a similar category.The biggest reason that I've seen that articles on Wiki get deleted is because they don't meet notability guidelines described here: WP:N. In order to be notable the subject of the article needs to be covered in at least a few outside credible sources. Whether or not the Lever itself is a credible source is not a criteria for whether it remains on Wikipedia. The Stelter article and the Izzy Award are a good start. If there is an AfD it will hinge on outside credible sources speaking specifically about the Lever. Mistipolis (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mistipolis, thanks for clarifying. You are making good points. I am just presenting the case for the article in its current form, partly for the record. Regarding additional sources, I am sure that certain reporting from The Lever was cited by some congress people as a basis for a congressional investigation, but I don't remember which stories or who the congress people are. (Maybe it was about airline deregulation?) If someone can track down that info, that should be helpful. Cheers. Dorje108 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" (BRASS Business Guide)
Another point that I think applies:
"A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization "(I think all of the interviews with The Lever reporters on other Media outlets fits the criteria for "ongoing media coverage")
Also this general criteria:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (the Stelter article fits this criteria)
Then the Izzy award is clearly a reliable secondary source.
Again, I am just making the case here in anticipation of a potential review. Your points are very helpful. Cheers. Dorje108 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just emphasizing that The Lever reporters are regularly interviewed on other news outlets. I think this should fit the criteria for ongoing media coverage. Dorje108 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
