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 delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEWeb[edit]

EEWeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Sources are unreliable, mostly from blogs and directory listings. Fails WP:NCORP. ^Ramaswar_(discuss) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that NCORP applies here, but I don't have enough experience to definitively say so. Here's my piece: the EE Times is related to this and is a legitimate and accredited source of journalism. EEWeb does seem to be quite popular as a forum, and seeing as it is directly related to the EE Times, I think that's why it wasn't originally deleted even though it was proposed to be deleted. Monstarules (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Blogs and press releases can support information in the article but cannot be used to establish notability. There are nearly no reliable sources cited that establish notability; there should be a search for more sources and added, if any exist. Multi7001 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As Monstarules said, I don't think WP:NCORP is a reason to delete this article. As mentioned, EETimes is closely related to EEWeb and they are both legitimate sources of news and journalism in the electronics industry. However, you're correct in saying that there's a lack of reliable sources and that is my fault. So, to fix this issue, I will refresh the article with reliable 3rd-party sources and references to bolster the legitimacy of this article. I'll have those prepared and update the article accordingly. Thank you for allowing discussion on this. MWatari (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP (the article is about a company, so I think this policy would apply). Also issues with source reliability, as per Multi7001. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've cleaned up the article considerably, adding references to bolster it. Also, I've added some categories, since EEWeb is an online magazine for electronics. These 3rd-party sources should suffice.

I also noticed that in the categories of other similar online magazines, a huge number of them lack references and are effectively stubs. Some examples are: Hands-On Electronics, Modern Electronics, Electronics World to name a few. Are notability requirements different for those magazines - I only ask because those articles are standing despite a huge lack of references. In any case, I've added more references and condensed much of the text. MWatari (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Multi7001. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (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.