Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon Global
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy delete. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lemon Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The claim is that this is an article about an online newspaper. But it's clear that http://lemonglobalnews.blogspot.com/ is a blog written entirely by one man. It's also not a particularly active blog and there's no evidence that it has the slightest influence. Pichpich (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does have influence when Adam Kokesh [1] uses it, and it endorses Ron Paul [2]. I say it should stay. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Benchmark, stop screwing around in the nominator's comments. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, new at this. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Benchmark, stop screwing around in the nominator's comments. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The greatest claim to fame is that a talk radio host linked to one of their articles on Facebook. That's not enough. In fact, I'm going to see if any admin is interested in considering speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Total failure of the general notability guidelines: no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm borderline on a speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I think.it should stay, it is one of the only news outlets that broke the news on HEK-293 and then led to Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey to make a law banning HEK-293 from Oklahoma. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should employ a proofreader (two b's in "lobbyist", and check for comma splices). Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's be clear: this is not a news outlet, it's a personal blog. This is not journalism, it's run-of-the-mill Internet conspiracy theorizing. Moreover, I don't see any evidence that your blog was a factor in Ralph Shortley's decision to draft his (widely ridiculed) bill. [3] Pichpich (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete complete absence of independent, reliable sources in the article to establish notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as it may have made Senator Shortey make a law that killed his career.Benchmark7 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you delete this for not having independent sources than you are all crazy, since when does news organizations talk about other news organizations, this is as good as it gets. Benchmark7 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a news organization--it's a blog, and a poorly written one at that. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is completely routine for news organizations to talk about other news organizations. For example here are thousands of instances of the Washington Post mentioning the New York Times Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks to be a one-man blog per above; moreover, I hate to risk an ad hominem argument, but it strikes me that there's some self-promotion going on with the vigorous defense which the author has engaged in. Let's just say that it reminds me of more than one deletion debate over the years involving stuff high schoolers have made up to put on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (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.