Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cincinnati Beacon

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Beacon

Failure to meet WP:WEB. [1] (thanks to ++Lar). Probably add Dean of Cincinnati to this AfD too. - FrancisTyers · 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both non notable website and individual. - FrancisTyers · 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because there’s no reason to keep it because it’s a non-notable blog totally lacking secondary coverage so we can’t have an article about it per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT. —xyzzyn 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was gonna wait to see if some verifiable evidence notability was added but one nice thing about an AfD nom... it often spurs people to take the need for notability seriously and to add the appropriate refs. Should the article change from how it is now to address this deficiency (perhaps there is some unique situation here???), I will change my comment, or if I fail to remember, please take that into consideration. But for now, I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of this, or Dean of Cincinnati either. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — WP:NN Betacommand 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per FrancisTyers. --S-man 06:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to say keep, but hesitant because the article has serious pov issues, and in many cases seems bent on attacking and disparging its subject. POV issues are not reason to delete, but attack pages are, and the article on Jason A. Haap was deleted as an attack page. This seems like another part of someone's effort to attack that person, so I have to say weak delete, but leave unprotected in case someone later wants to write a neutral, non-attacking article on this cross between a newspaper and a blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 2006-08-07T20:18:09 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep

Read up you guys. Don't be so lazy.

Francis, Failure to meet WP:WEB is irrelevant. Notability is not a criteria for deletion.

xyz, Valrith, Betacommand, Ohconfucius, S-man, please familiarize yourselves with AfD policy, to whit "How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."1010011010 06:30, 11 August 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.