Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTC Times

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTC Times

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

I cannot find sources to demonstrate that this web content is notable. The prod was removed with the comment "This article should not be deleted because it is an online newspaper". -- John of Reading (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the page should be deleted because it is an online newspaper.--Toontown59153 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) — Toontown59153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It could equally well be argued that an article on the shed in my back garden should not be deleted because it's an article on a shed in my back garden. You're essentially presenting a content-free argument. Please make a proper argument, based upon our policies and guidelines.
  I've reverted your improper removal of the AFD notice, by the way. Don't do that again. The notice stays up whilst the AFD discussion is open. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I did not realize I was not supposed to delete that. Toontown59153 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) So if I created a page about a specific brand of sofa that wasn't a best-seller, or about an artist who made one painting that was sold at a cra boot sale, would those pages be justified just because "it's about a sofa" or "it's about an artist." The problem is that just because it is an online newspaper doesn't mean it deserves to have its own Wikipedia article, it has to be notable, which means it needs to have featured in several reliable sources, which the TTC Times has not. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web content with no Gnews hits. The article was also created by a single-purpose account. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I still do not think the page should be deleted. It is a popular online newspaper read by about 5,000 people and it is very important. And it's very similar to a newspaper, just online and in a different form. Search it up on Bing or something. Toontown59153 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a content-free argument. What the subject is is of little relevance. This is an encyclopaedia of existing human knowledge, that we can demonstrate the world to have already acknowledged and reliably and properly recorded and published outside of Wikipedia, where subjects only warrant articles where the world has independently recorded in-depth knowledge beyond single factoids and directory entries. That is what is relevant. Again, please make an argument that is actually based upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability. —mono 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - absence of notability (I also suspect severe COI, but that's not relevant in an AfD). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I give it notability? 99.183.188.158 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can show us that the topic is notable by adding references to reliable sources that are independent of TTC Times. Has anyone else written about it? See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am on the fansite, I find no need or notability for this article. Allmightyduck (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability in coverage by reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass notability requirements and a search for sources produced literally nothing. Possibly notable in-world, but this isn't sufficient for an article. Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 10 July 2010 (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.