Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Chron

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. Mangojuice^talk 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Chron

Non-notable blog. Gets 123,000 Google hits -- only 120 of which are unique, which looks a might suspicuous. Calton | Talk 08:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)`

• Wrong -- it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse, at least among insiders. It has broken various political stories. Randy Shaw is a very controversial figure in local SF politics, and his opinion is widely read and respected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhogarth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2006, Creator and (essentially) sole editor of the article.

• Whether Randy Shaw is respected or reviled is completely irrelevant, as this is about the website "Beyond Chron", not him. And I fail to see the slightest sign that "it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse". Any proof? --Calton | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Beyond Chron first reported the story that Mayor Newsom's press secretary had bought an apartment where a tenant had been evicted -- which even the SF Chronicle had to later <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/10/BAG86I6JRP1.DTL">admit that this was newsworthy</a>. Also, when Joe O'Donoghue wrote his anti-Newsom poem at Beyond Chron that speculated that the Mayor was gay, the Board of Supervisors responded by <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-06-29/news/smith.html">censuring Joe O'Donoghue.</a>
• It should also be noted that Beyond Chron has already been mentioned on Wikipedia's entry of the San Francisco Chronicle, which shows that it is a notable blog.

Delete and salt the earth with the ashes. Fails WP:WEB very badly. Not verifiable via search sites (google, yahoo, ask, msn, webcrawler). No media attention given (articals about the blog itself and not just the stories it has 'broken'. Full-length featured article. Just a sentance or mention in passing is not acceptable).

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

         * This criterion excludes
               o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
               o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
         * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Nothing shows this is the case for this blog site.

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

Nothing that I could find.

3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Nope, can't say this is true either.

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Well, it fails WP:WEB... --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:26, 15 September 2006 (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.