Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TamaHawk Native News

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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TamaHawk Native News

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

An independent native news source with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Deletion Recommendation It may not be well known in your circle, however it is extremely popular news source for thousands of Indigenous in Indian Country. With article being published weekly, it deserves to be relevant in wikis history. I am a regular reader of the network and was thrilled when I learned that a page had been created. I as secondary school teacher allow my students to utilize wiki as a credible source, unlike many institutions who find it not as scholarly. Wikipedia can not delete a page based on lack of "Coverage". Read their news, see their stories, it is relevant and pertinent to our society and should be represented in our online encyclopedia.

Thank You L.Lightey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.221.75 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little confused in your comments. It is precisely our insistence on reliable sourcing that gives us any claim to be a credible source. If we didn't have that requirement then no competent teacher would be able to recommend Wikipedia to their students. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Gnews, Gbooks, Gscholar. Few Ghits, none useful as WP:RS sources to evidence notability. Could find no evidence of the alleged connections to the World Health Organization or International Labour Office. Simply addressing notable issues does not make the newsletter itself notable. If anyone can find substantial, secondary sources that suggest notability, will be happy to evaluate and change my mind, if warranted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which requires references. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

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.