Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Currents

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 of the debate was keep improved version. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Currents

Vanity. Author (who has since been banned) created article on small local newspaper with practically no text about the paper, but uploaded images of three articles, about himself. If anyone can think of a speedy category that fits that would be great. Material is tied to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Long Island Project. - Fan1967 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pictures are ridiculous, and I've removed them. Despite the vanity motives involved in creating the article, we should judge the stub on its own merits. Gamaliel 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there enough of a stub left to justify an article? Local paper with a circulation of 75K seems iffy. Fan1967 04:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn has 2.5 million people. Seems possible. Gamaliel 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless expanded. Some guy 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this looks like one of those newspapers you'd pick up from a restaurant to read over coffee. I see this as insignificant :: Colin Keigher 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flagging this stub out of spite for its creator is not necessary. It may be a free newspaper, but there are free newspapers listed across Wikipedia. This is not the only one. Katherine 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete article stub does not seem expandable and there seems to be no desire by the parties to expand. Strothra 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it's not longer WP:VAIN, seems like a decent stub Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because its free doesn't mean its nn. As noted above, plenty of free newspapers with much lower print-runs have entries. Fishhead64 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, print run seems to work. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears to be headed in the right direction now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen AMNew York on this website--and they have a similar run. Almost Famous 07:17, 19 April 2006 (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.