Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax[edit]

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

The article is too over-promotional. Speedy turned down Atlantic306 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotion is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE concern, and the article is actually much better than I expected, although apparently uses WP:UGC a few times. Profiles in the NYT and Financial Times, among others, satisfy WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article documents that it is the most trafficked online conservative website. I don't understand the desire to remove it. It is clearly significant and any promotional items can be corrected. JodyB_talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got coverage in Forbes, for example this article. Someone can rewrite the Wikipedia article if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to delete the Newsmax article. It looks just fine to me. 2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Comment moved from Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion by Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG just based on the sources in the article, and it doesn't look to be so completely unusable that it merits WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this highly inflated piece of hype - and either let the hot air out or tag for the need to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2016 (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.