| Revision as of 02:20, 27 November 2005 editDavenbelle (talk | contribs)3,206 edits keep← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:22, 21 December 2022 edit undoSheep8144402 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers33,719 editsm →[]: fix font tags using AWB, also remove unsupported blink tagsTag: AWB | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. ] | ] 11:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| 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: <s>'''Very weak keep'''. --] 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)</s>After some additional thought, '''Delete'''. --] 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | 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: <s>'''Very weak keep'''. --] 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)</s>After some additional thought, '''Delete'''. --] 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Delete''' just another "blog" advertised, non notable, was introduced by a ]... Someone is advertising to be popular. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 10:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' just another "blog" advertised, non notable, was introduced by a ]... Someone is advertising to be popular. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 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. ] 10:39, 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. ] 10:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Weak keep''' for the moment - maybe revisit next year. ] ] 12:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | * '''Weak keep''' for the moment - maybe revisit next year. ] ] 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. ] 19:39, 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. ] 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **(Note that this comment was made by a user whose only edit is this comment.) --] 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | **(Note that this comment was made by a user whose only edit is this comment.) --] 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''Delete.''' Check out ]'s contributions. He or she is just advertising. --] 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete.''' Check out ]'s contributions. He or she is just advertising. --] 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom and ]. ] 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom and ]. ] 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! - ] <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) | |||
| *Strong '''Delete'''. Most of the Google hits are in fact bots and indexes. Even if it is a real publication, this is way outside ] () ] 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Delete''' as non-notable. ] 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 01:22, 21 December 2022
- 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
- Strong Delete. Most of the Google hits are in fact bots and indexes. Even if it is a real publication, this is way outside WP:WEB (Alexa) HackJandy 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as non-notable. Stifle 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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.