Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Free Press
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. After relist, consensus was adequately reached. Singularity 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Capital City Free Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable e-zine. No claim to notability asserted in the article, and draws only 635 hits in the Google test. It's web site [www.capcityfreepress.com] doesn't crack Alexa, either. Consequentially 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, from hits on google appears to be popular and talked about e-zine. --Belovedfreak 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The top results: 1) It's own cite. 2) It's own site. 3) Directory reference. 4) Cafepress.com 5) Cafepress.com 6) Blog. 7) Blog. 8) Blog. 9) Blog. 10) CD Baby. These aren't Reliable sources. The next ten? Band promotion site, band promo site, a trivial resume mention, personal promo site, band promo site, directory info, directory info, CD Baby promo, band promo, and a blog. This isn't popular. This is bands clinging to a positive review published in a local e-zine. The bar for e-content is set higher in Google tests because web-content can replicate and spread quickly. This e-zine hasn't spread . . . anywhere. Consequentially 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources, google results do not hint of any sources either -- Whpq 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article cites no sources, and those found on Google do not include the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject required to establish notability. Unfortunately this does seem to be a problem in that media outlets seldom seem to write about other media outlets, so notability is hard to prove. However, per Consequentially above, more than 742 g-hits would be needed to show widespread dissemination of this e-zine. EyeSereneTALK 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources and not easily found, if any exist. Not notable. Pharmboy 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. No one has provided references and none are obviously available, so notability is not established. Nuttah68 09:53, 12 August 2007 (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.