Talk:The Athletic

outside perspective on importance of subject + simple vs normal english wikipedia?

it looks like there has been some discussion about whether this article deserves deletion, i'm guessing because of questions about neutral point of view? not going to get into that becasue i dont want there to be questions about me being a sock puppet or something, i truly am just coming in here as a wikipedia reader who ran into a confusing issue.

The confusion arose because i am using an article from the athletic for a project i'm working on, and while properly referencing it, I was confused about the publication's relationship to the new york times. Obviously the article's content would have more weight if i could point out that the publication was from the NY times, so i was trying to figure out what relationship the two had, if any. It appears from my own research that it was bought by the NY times and used to completely replace their internal sports department back in 2022.

But i was confused, because the first article i found was this: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Athletic which seemed to be about the same publication, but it contained no reference whatsoever to the new york times. To be honest, i didnt even know there was a "simple english" version of wikipedia prior to this.

I am adding this comment because it seems there is some people interested in maintaining this article, and to point out that having an article in the other english version of wikipedia that is so outdated is problematic.

I also felt it might help inform the discussion as to whether the article subject is notable enough to have its own wikipedia page. I am a random person who came to wikipdia to find out more about this website/publication, so take this as a data point, whatever that is worth.

I'm going to cross post this on the talk page in the "simple" wikipedia wiki (the entire idea behind that, side note, i think is a bad idea. It's a trap begging for bad or outdated information articles to exist, IMO. I wonder if a discussion on the potential benefit vs likelyhood of harm has been had as to this alternate-version-english-wikipedia site?

- Laced8 (i am not on my home computer, so avoiding logging in at the moment)

76.174.113.253 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because:

Despite the user ban, the content itself appears to meet notability guidelines, does not violate any explicit content rules and has been extensively revised and edited since its creation by those who are not sockpuppets, including myself. --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

5 sources are from The Athletic itself, 1 from Y Combinator (a program they participated in), 1 is a tweet by a The Athletic employee, 1 is written by another employee on his blog ([1], [2]). But yes, I guess there are still other reliable sources supporting notability. --MarioGom (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I count 24 references overall. Even if all the contested sources are removed, that still leaves 16 independent sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

reverting

I reverted this article to it's only known neutral state but it appears to have been reverted. Specifically, Pr12402 can you please explain why we need a list of every author and editor to have ever written for the publication? No other article that we have does this - it's not meant to be a directory. Imagine if we did this for New York Times and by reverting my edits entirely, you've restored several dozen spammy sock edits. Wikipedia also isn't a directory, we shouldn't be listing subscription tiers or random out of context quotes... Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is also wildly promotional, more than half of the sources are The Athletic itself and unless another reliable source (ie. several) specifically state things like The Athletic provides subscribers with engrossing storytelling, analysis, exclusives, and full access to its global content. Their interactive content, includes: podcasts, video, events, and live Q&As with its writers.[8][9][10], it doesn't belong in the article at all. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And my last comment until Pr12402 responds: this is the absolute last neutral, sourced version. Minor fixes (like images and infobox) can be adjusted but it should be restored there - currently, it's sourced almost entirely to The Athletic itself and other non-independent sources and it reads as nothing more than a press release. Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are/were Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillgoldsmith/2018/10/30/the-athletic-raises-40m-in-fresh-cash/#272d7871937a, Strauss's one of Washington Post in the lead, more. By diving into them, it would be possible to bolster up takes here and there instead of links from theathletic.com, maybe with changed wording. There are , and other inlines to use too, if there still be unsupported text left after diving into the media coverage in references. The full castration of the list of writers may be excessive, for example Talk:Baseball_Prospectus#List_of_staff_writers suggests to keep the list in any form; apparently, there were changes and Baseball Prospectus now sports just a section with the ones that have a Wiki page. Anyway, the Athletic article was akin to Baseball Prospectus but smaller – no need to delete its paragraphs in an instant and chunks. There is gonna be more sources in the web to be incorporated into the article to rely upon. -- pr12402, April 29, 2020

this is a forbes contributor piece. What value does this add exactly? Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for pointing out Baseball Prospectus, which needs someone to take an ax to it as well. However, "there is gonna be more sources" needs to be "there are sources and they are here in the article." until then, it shouldn't be restored. Lastly, we don't need every single change and merger. This isn't a business listing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You have raised the question of the abundance of theathletic.com links. There were a paragraph as to the funding rounds removed by you (maybe it is restored now). "The Athletic offers in-depth storytelling—“beyond game recaps,” it says—live Q&A with writers and other sports fans, and a popular mobile app. It's motto: fall in love with the sports pages again." - a take in text to bolster up with a ref. Please use the refs were in place before raising questions where are sources or so. Otherwise, please challenge Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inline_citation_and_verifiability_dispute_templates) first. -- pr12402, April 29, 2020

@Pr12402: I'm not sure if you're aware but I've left another inquiry with regard to your COI/paid editing on your talk page. Please respond there before editing elsewhere. On a note about this article, you're not demonstrating knowledge of our source requirements. Just linking to random categories and essays is meaningless. You haven't shown that there's any independent coverage for the content that I've removed nor a policy or consensus based reasoning for it's inclusion and a two person discussion from 12 years ago on a low profile article isn't consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a statement about free, voluntary edits. 12 years ago the Wikipedia was smaller than it is today. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ Anyway, I'd not think that the matter as to the Athletic shall be discussed by two people and decided just by one admin. Make the case public. -- pr12402, April 29, 2020

Your insistence on reintroducing a wall of text/unnecessary sources goes right back to why you were taken to ANI. Perhaps you need to re-read the thread and I think you should re-read the response on your talk page about COI editing. Anyway, I'd not think that the matter as to the Athletic shall be discussed by two people and decided just by one admin. Make the case public. what? This page is literally public. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)