| Revision as of 02:20, 27 November 2005 editDavenbelle (talk | contribs)3,206 edits keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:34, 27 November 2005 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Strong delete'''. This is blatant advertising of a news aggregator. The entire front page has ''one single'' story credited to the editorial staff of this paper, and that's a summary of someone else's summary of a speech! - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Strong delete'''. This is blatant advertising of a news aggregator. The entire front page has ''one single'' story credited to the editorial staff of this paper, and that's a summary of someone else's summary of a speech! - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. It may be a minor site, but a minor article is fine. — ] 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. It may be a minor site, but a minor article is fine. — ] 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **Why am I not suprised to see Davenbelle... Gee... --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:34, 27 November 2005
The Kurdistani
Hard to tell if this online paper is notable. Nominated for CSD, but I don't think it quite fits. I decided to nominate it for AfD to be fair to the CSD nominator (although I also left the CSD tag in place). My opinion: Very weak keep. --Nlu 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)After some additional thought, Delete. --Nlu 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'm giving this one the benefit of doubt (bearing in mind systemic bias), even though the site was only set up in June this year, and there are other Kurdish media outlets going for 5 yrs, with better traffic figures, eg, www.kurdistanobserver.com. Squiddy 09:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete just another "blog" advertised, non notable, was introduced by a User:Kurdnews... Someone is advertising to be popular. --Cool Cat 10:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence of non-notability presented. All functioning news services should have articles as wikipedia is just about the only source that can comment neutrally on their status. CalJW 10:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep for the moment - maybe revisit next year. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. The site claims to be an online paper and it seems that it has regular daily contents with geniune traffic. I would say keep it for a year and if it went on the same pace keep, if not then delete. alllan 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Note that this comment was made by a user whose only edit is this comment.) --Nlu 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- How about this, dlete, wait a year if there is notable traffic undelete. High schools are more notable for Christs sake! --Cool Cat 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Check out 82.35.14.138's contributions. He or she is just advertising. --Hottentot 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Hottentot. Dbchip 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is blatant advertising of a news aggregator. The entire front page has one single story credited to the editorial staff of this paper, and that's a summary of someone else's summary of a speech! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It may be a minor site, but a minor article is fine. — Davenbelle 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why am I not suprised to see Davenbelle... Gee... --Cool Cat 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)