- 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. Sandstein 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Claycord.com edit
- Claycord.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local news blog with no notable awards and no coverage to prove notability. There's some mentions of the blog and the person running it, but no in-depth discussion in decent secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Lots of mentions on news sites that say "as reported by claycord.com" but nothing in secondary sources.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Local news blogs are highly unlikely to be notable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion is premature. Per the deletion policy there are less drastic alternatives to deletion. There has never been any mention of deletion on the Talk:Claycord.com page. The article was vetted by the Articles for Creation Project (AfC) and approved by Gtwfan52 (now known as John from Idegon and approved on 18 June 2013. The AfD nominating Editor Drmies has made no efforts to improve the page, discuss on Talk, or carefully place maintenance tags (with explanation on the article Talk page). Since 2013 the article has never received maintenance tags or negative input on the Talk page. The article has been edited since 2013 by six respected Editors and none placed tags or proposed deletion. Please withdraw the deletion nomination and proceed with normal article improvement protocols. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment AfC is not a perfect process. 2 years later and with more experience, I would not approve it today. If reliable secondary sources cannot be found, from diverse geographical areas, talking in detail about this organization, and not the stories they have covered, then the organization is not notable. It's notability has never been challenged. Now it has. I will refrain from actually casting a vote, but to prescribe bad faith to the nomination is a mistake. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are actually some pretty huge issues with AfC - especially with people accepting articles that do not pass notability guidelines. I've seen multiple articles get accepted and then get deleted in the mainspace. In the past month I had to move a few articles back to AfC because they failed notability guidelines quite spectacularly. I've had one person say that they've accepted articles knowing that they had multiple issues (notability, tone, sourcing, etc), as they hoped that the article would be improved upon acceptance to the mainspace. My point here is that there are a lot of people who accept articles that have no business passing AfC, so saying that one person accepted it at AfC is not really a point in the article's favor. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The most promising sources are these two interviews,[1][2] and all of the others just seem to be passing mentions. This isn't quite the level of coverage needed to pass WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: This article is a promotional spammy mess. I'm going to see if I can clean it up. Offhand the bulk of the sources are not usable to show notability and are being used to promote the website. I've asked this on the talk page, but I need to ask again here: Checkingfax, what is your relation to this website? This article is so promotional in tone that I get the strong impression that you either work for this website or were asked (or paid) to come and edit this article - in situations like these this is almost always the case. You can still edit with a conflict of interest but you must have this information placed somewhere, preferrably on your userpage since that will make it easier for incoming editors to see your conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up dramatically. Here's a rundown of the sources, many of which I've removed.
Sources |
---|
|
- In the end all we really have here are a handful of interviews by local sources. I'll try to find more coverage, but I don't particularly see where this site has really been covered by any news site that isn't from the same area. Some of the site's news stories have been posted elsewhere, but that in and of itself isn't something that would be notability giving. It makes it more likely that there would be coverage and it means that we could very likely use the site as a reliable source, but that is also not something that would give notability. I'm leaning towards a delete on this one since all we really have to show notability are a handful of interviews through local sources and one article, also written by a local source. None of the awards are the type that Wikipedia would consider notability giving, as they're all local awards that do not appear to have received coverage outside of the local area. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. A search didn't bring up much, just this brief article by the SF Gate. The issue of it only having received local coverage still exists and I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really assert notability in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2015 (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.
🔥 Top keywords: Akademia e Shkencave e RPS te ShqiperiseAlexandria Ocasio-CortezBilderberg GroupCristiano RonaldoDong XiaowanMinecraftOperation GladioPrimal cutRiot FestStrictly Come Dancing (series 7)Main PageSpecial:SearchWikipedia:Featured picturesIga ŚwiątekRamoji RaoHit Man (2023 film)Pawan KalyanMichael Mosley (broadcaster)2024 Indian general electionWilliam AndersChirag PaswanCleopatraJasmine PaoliniPat SajakProject 20252024 ICC Men's T20 World CupDeaths in 2024Glen PowellKidnapping of Noa ArgamaniAdria ArjonaBad Boys: Ride or DieEarthriseVanna WhiteThe Acolyte (TV series)UEFA Euro 2024YouTubeThe Watchers (film)Beechcraft T-34 MentorSabrina CarpenterNormandy landingsBarry Keoghan.xxxGodzilla Minus OneTaylor SwiftN. Chandrababu NaiduClash at the Castle: ScotlandICC Men's T20 World CupTom Jones (singer)LAC Colombia Flight 028