Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portfolio.hu

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio.hu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, WP:NNEWSPAPER, claims to high readership are not verifiable (and are not criteria for notability; if a publication is widely read, there will be independent coverage of it) and neither Portfolio.hu nor the lone independent source appear to have ever been mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard. Corresponding article on the Hungarian wiki does not appear to have any reliable sources cited either.

Based on their talk page, the article's creator tried to create a similar page earlier at Portfolio (media company), got denied at AfC due to not demonstrating notability, and then abandoned the draft. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio.hu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a response to the comment above: the claims made on high readership are verifiable, they are explicitly mentioned in Hungarian articles of independent, major newsoutlets writing about the latest Gemius audit reports on which online news site made it into the top segment in Hungary. Thus the statement on this is wrong. English sources are not available on this, but that is also the case for many foreign newspapers, and it is not a criteria for verifiability, as the foreign language sources can easily be translated. This news site is listed among the oldest and biggest economic journals in Hungary, which is regularly cited in Hungarian media. This statement can also be verified, though it is not currently cited. I believe that this fact has to translate into adequate notability with respect to Hungarian news sites. Reaching such readership as cited in a small country of 10 million puts it in comparison to leading news sites in advanved countries, such as the US. A less relevant note, but it seems to me the notability of most other Hungarian news sites currently covered in this wiki's corresponding section could be attacked in a similar fashion, which I do not see as justified. _signed, bence.andras ^talk 09:40, 14 September 2018 CEST

• Please add citations that are not from portfolio.hu itself, but from independent sources. The Hungarian Wikipedia is more extensive, but still would not be acceptable here due to lack of third-party sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place. The article is thus correctly worded that it is "one of the most read" financial newspapers in Hungary, but not the most read. This fact justifies, that it is a notable newspaper in Hungary. Now, three independent sources are put in place to verify this information. The citation for portfoliocsoport.hu actually is not a self-reference, but it includes references to some DKT Gemius auditor data, that is why I believe that it is acceptable to provide that as a source as well. DKT Gemius is a paid audit service in Hungary, however, I am not sure if it is freely available._signed, bence.andras ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing additional citations, they do appear to back up the claims made by the article. The only remaining concern is that while these websites appear to justify these claims, they still don't discuss the subject in-depth, as nominally required by WP:GNG. WP:NNEWSPAPER, which is a relevant subject-specific essay, says that a periodical can be considered notable if it has made a significant impact in its field. Interpreted charitably, portfolio.hu's high readership would clear this hurdle, but it seems odd that a subject specific guideline for newspapers doesn't explicitly say that high readership demonstrates notability (although this could perhaps be explained away due to it being an essay, and not a guideline or policy). I'm tempted to say that notability has been demonstrated, but I would like other editors to chime in as well before withdrawing my nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per bence.andras's statement above:

  I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place.

  That a source verifies that until last year, "Portfolio.hu [was] the most read financial newspaper in Hungary" establishes it is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The claims made in the article to significance are backed up by the sources, they need translating and re-reading etc as foreign language, but I can't see any problem with notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Readership numbers and other popularity measures are not a reason to keep. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Unsure about WP:GNG but seems to be widely known in Hungary. There are a few sources that are independent but personally I think they are sufficient. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 8 October 2018 (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.