Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Chronicle


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

American Chronicle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This news website is not notable. The site has a disclaimer which reveals that it is essentially a blog as anyone can contribute. Article created by an editor of the website (see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard). The article was PRODd but contested by a first time editing IP user with no explanation. Smartse (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing but a puff piece for a non-notable website. Even the references point to their own website. It's even written like an advert. It's not possible to get an accurate gHit count due to it's unimaginative name. -- Web H amster  15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - made an honest attempt to wade through some google news results, and found nothing that wasn't either a) entirely unrelated, because of the generic name, or b) put out by the site or one of its arms. Note that all the article blue links are circular redirects. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I hadn't noticed that - can an admin speedily delete them quickly or does it need to be done by hand? Smartse (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted as a result of this AfD, the closing admin is supposed to also delete all incoming redirects. If the admin forgets to do this, they can be tagged with db-redirnone. Deor (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC


 * Weak Delete At this point there is nothing in the content of the article to be salvaged. However, regarding the subject of the article, is there a way to show how popular this site really is? If indeed it is, then perhaps the article could be spared (although blanked).--Avg (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note The following circular redirects have been removed from the article but should also be deleted if the conclusion of this debate is to delete: World Sentinel, Catalina Chronicle, Florida Chronicle, Fresno Chronicle, Illinois Chronicle, Irvine Chronicle, Long Beach Chronicle, Maryland Chronicle, Palm Springs Chronicle, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Riverside Chronicle, Sacramento Chronicle, San Diego Chronicle, San Jose Chronicle, Santa Barbara Chronicle, Santa Monica Chronicle, and World News Chronicle. Smartse (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete": Ι recently came accross some articles of this which their team may write but not a new user like in wikipedia and the style of writing by the authors I read was hiddeous and certainly non-professional. See a characteristic libel at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102469 --Dimorsitanos (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are around 400 links on wikipedia to this site. I've reported it to wikiproject spam here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Smartse (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete You have to give marks for effort, but I don't think we want every blog on the planet to make an article based on how many links they can create to prove how "notable" it is in terms of Google. There appears to be no WP:RS saying this blog is notable. Now we just have to clean out the spamlinks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2009 (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.