Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizWest


 * 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

BizWest
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local business newspaper with zero evidence of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a directory-like listing for a nn business website / publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well an Admin with a hate on for me gutted it. I consider all long running print publications notable but I don't really care about this page. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has two solid/reliable sources. It is a bona fide business publication that appears to have good quality. Given the quality of the online publication, it will only grow in importance. I removed the dead links from the article.Knox490 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cited sources are not WP:RELIABLE as they do not have bylines. Unable to find reliable coverage in my own search. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh?! How does not having a byline make a story in The Denver Post or Fort Collins Coloradoan not reliable? WP:NEWSORG says news reporting from well-established newspapers such as these is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage possibly primarily based on a press release. If no one at the paper has put their name on the article, it is not clear it has received editorial control. I don't assume everything put out by a reliable source has the same level of reliability. Presence of a byline is one thing I look at. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Good sources in the article. I see no particular reason why this article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:44, 8 January 2018 (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.