Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
NatGertler (talk | contribs) →Newsmax: Moving keep !vote misplaced on another page |
k |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* '''Keep'''. It's got coverage in ''[[Forbes]]'', for example [http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/newsmax-christopher-ruddy-business-media-ruddy.html this article]. Someone can rewrite the Wikipedia article if necessary. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
* '''Keep'''. It's got coverage in ''[[Forbes]]'', for example [http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/newsmax-christopher-ruddy-business-media-ruddy.html this article]. Someone can rewrite the Wikipedia article if necessary. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
* There's no reason to delete the Newsmax article. It looks just fine to me. [[Special:Contributions/2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D|2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D]] ([[User talk:2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D|talk]]) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC) <small> Comment moved from [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion]] by [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) </small> |
* There's no reason to delete the Newsmax article. It looks just fine to me. [[Special:Contributions/2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D|2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D]] ([[User talk:2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D|talk]]) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC) <small> Comment moved from [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion]] by [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) </small> |
||
*'''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]]. — <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:12, 10 July 2016
Newsmax
- Newsmax (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)
The article is too over-promotional. Speedy turned down Atlantic306 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)