Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

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

Website does not meet WP:GNG. Tinton5 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of properly sourced evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:WEB. I don't see any references in independent sources in the article, and a quick Google search doesn't find any, either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about http://somervilletoday.com/news/new-jersey/ ? Njdemocrat (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is notable and the content is neutral and notable. This page should be retained as part of Wikipedia because the subject is clearly a real entity that can have a significant impact on society. New media dedicated to the collection and dissemination of objective information -- especially independent and professionally created news in this age of corporate dominated information -- deserves to be recognized. This website was established by former Star Ledger reporters who lost their jobs. It contains valid news about New Jersey and has potential to become a significant part of the state's culture. Njdemocrat (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC) no original research is needed to extract the contentNjdemocrat (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep things based on whether they have the potential to become a significant part of the state's culture; we keep things based on whether or not they already are a significant part of the culture — which we determine based on the presence or absence of real, reliable sources about the topic, not based on individual user manifestos. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No claim of notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 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.

the claim is inherent in the subject.Njdemocrat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]