Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakingviews


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Breakingviews
Alexa rank 363,554, it is basically a very specialized news ticker which "publishes" via email newsletters Ruby 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable advertising company, fails WP:CORP, this article is nothing but self-promotion. Camillus (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Royboycrashfan. --Ardenn 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --djrobgordon 07:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The following page on breakingviews.com establishes notability: .  The site publishes (or at least it claims to) a print column in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal (U.S. edition).  It has also been mentioned by Bloomberg and Forbes articles:  . btm talk 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite Btm's claims, I still think this fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Compu  te  r  Jo  e  12:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per ComputerJoe. --Andy Saunders 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. —Cleared as filed. 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Naturally I'd advocate keeping this as I wrote it, but I do have some logical reasons i'd like to share: 1) This most certainly isn't an advert as I don't have any connection with the group whatsoever other than having taken advantage of their trial. 2) The group is a significant news provider to the financial world in the London and NY markets, as and such merits mention as a journalistic group. 3) It's of interest as a wholly web-based news group, as an example of the move of such niche journals towards the net and away from classic hard-copy publishing. 4) Its syndication in notable traditional news sources (eg WSJ, Sunday Telegraph) vouches for its quality above "specialised news ticker" status.  5) Verifiable information is available to support the statements made in the article, and nothing vague or unsupportable has been written.  6) Finally, any such article about any news journal might be considered promotional if this one is to be deleted.  How can the articles on The Week, Arena (magazine), The Face, or Heat (magazine) be justified?  None of these articles provide a comparable level of impartiality (The Week: "witty, smart, and nonpartisan"), represent journals with significant links to other fields (finance), or relate to an unusual or atypical publication (Heat, the Face and all other glossies and lads mags are essentially identical and trivial and perhaps do not merit seperate description).  Upon re-reading the article, I can see how it might seem like an advert, becuase I stuck only to facts I could find, and included no commentary of my own. But that's an argument for edits and revisions, not deletion.  Those were my reasons for starting the article, and they are my reasons for voting to Keep it.  --Corinthian 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eusebeus 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stifle 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean it up so it doesn't look like advertising so much. They appear to be plenty notable. Peyna 02:47, 9 February 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.