Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDetroiter.com
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 no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TheDetroiter.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:WEB; no substantial coverage in independent sources referenced or found. Jfire (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is some coverage in news sources, but I'm not sure that it's enough to meet WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two references (one of which is rather shaky)—I'll go out on a limb and say Keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't do it for me. The second is just a quote from and link to an article on the site itself, and the first, while providing some minimal coverage, is oriented more as a biography of Nick Sousanis. It notes that the site "gets a couple of hundred visits a day". Overall, short of WP:WEBs guideline: "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Jfire (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand where you're coming from. But unlike promotional website articles that get added daily, I think this one documents a worthy site in a non-spammy way. Too bad there aren't better sources available. Also, the "couple hundred visits a day" was from a few years ago-- presumably it has increased. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - this article ([1]) looks promising. Does anyone have a newsbank account? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 8 February 2009 (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.