Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claycord.com


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Claycord.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local news blog with no notable awards and no coverage to prove notability. There's some mentions of the blog and the person running it, but no in-depth discussion in decent secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Lots of mentions on news sites that say "as reported by claycord.com" but nothing in secondary sources.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Local news blogs are highly unlikely to be notable. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion is premature. Per the deletion policy there are less drastic alternatives to deletion. There has never been any mention of deletion on the Talk:Claycord.com page. The article was vetted by the Articles for Creation Project (AfC) and approved by (now known as  and approved on 18 June 2013. The AfD nominating Editor  has made no efforts to improve the page, discuss on Talk, or carefully place maintenance tags (with explanation on the article Talk page). Since 2013 the article has never received maintenance tags or negative input on the Talk page. The article has been edited since 2013 by six respected Editors and none placed tags or proposed deletion. Please withdraw the deletion nomination and proceed with normal article improvement protocols. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment AfC is not a perfect process. 2 years later and with more experience, I would not approve it today.  If reliable secondary sources cannot be found, from diverse geographical areas, talking in detail about this organization, and not the stories they have covered, then the organization is not notable.  It's notability has never been challenged. Now it has.  I will refrain from actually casting a vote, but to prescribe bad faith to the nomination is a mistake.  John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are actually some pretty huge issues with AfC - especially with people accepting articles that do not pass notability guidelines. I've seen multiple articles get accepted and then get deleted in the mainspace. In the past month I had to move a few articles back to AfC because they failed notability guidelines quite spectacularly. I've had one person say that they've accepted articles knowing that they had multiple issues (notability, tone, sourcing, etc), as they hoped that the article would be improved upon acceptance to the mainspace. My point here is that there are a lot of people who accept articles that have no business passing AfC, so saying that one person accepted it at AfC is not really a point in the article's favor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The most promising sources are these two interviews, and all of the others just seem to be passing mentions. This isn't quite the level of coverage needed to pass WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is a promotional spammy mess. I'm going to see if I can clean it up. Offhand the bulk of the sources are not usable to show notability and are being used to promote the website. I've asked this on the talk page, but I need to ask again here: Checkingfax, what is your relation to this website? This article is so promotional in tone that I get the strong impression that you either work for this website or were asked (or paid) to come and edit this article - in situations like these this is almost always the case. You can still edit with a conflict of interest but you must have this information placed somewhere, preferrably on your userpage since that will make it easier for incoming editors to see your conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up dramatically. Here's a rundown of the sources, many of which I've removed.


 * Official website This is the official website. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot show notability. Primary sources can back up basic details but in many situations it's typically not needed.
 * CBS Local This is the news feed for CBS Local. This would also be considered a primary source in a way since they're reposting stories from the website. It's not really something that would count towards notability. Sites reposting or borrowing from other websites is pretty common and can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee.
 * CBS Local Same site, a repost/rehash of C.C's story. Like the news feed, reposts don't count towards notability on Wikipedia.
 * CBS Local Same thing here.
 * Contra Costa Times This article briefly mentions the website, but this brief mention isn't the type that would show notability. This is also a local newspaper so it might be depreciated because of that. Local sources will typically cover local things like websites, people, and the like, so these tend to be considered less notability giving than coverage by a newspaper published elsewhere. If it was a major newspaper (like New York Times) then this could help some, but it's sort of a middling newspaper.
 * Huffington Post. This isn't really something that's overly notable. Like the other source, the website is only briefly mentioned as a source. Either way, stuff like this is of the typical human interest "haha, people so stupid" variety. Unless the news site breaks a story that is overwhelmingly notable, it's generally assumed that a news website will be mentioned elsewhere. The thing about overwhelmingly notable stories is that the story would have to be very, very extensively covered elsewhere and the website would have to be mentioned in-depth and be explicitly mentioned as the website that broke the story. Offhand mentions that someone else reported on something isn't enough. It's very, very rare and very difficult for a news story and the reporting website to accomplish this because things of this nature are so routine.
 * SF Gate. This is an interview. The SF Gate is a reliable source, so I'd count this as usable. However a lot of people tend to depreciate interviews and call them a primary source if the interview is posted "as is" and is more a series of questions and answers rather than a writeup of the interview. What works against this article is that it's fairly short, so many might consider it a WP:TRIVIAL source.
 * Diablo Magazine. This has an editorial board, so it'd be usable, although it would still have the same issues that typically face interviews. It's longer than the other post, which is good, though. What works against this though, is that this is a local magazine.
 * Contra Costa Times. This would be usable, although the concerns about it being local coverage still apply.
 * Street Fight. This site has an editorial board and it's written by a staff member, so it's usable. However it's another interview, which proves problematic for the reasons stated above.
 * About the Bay series: Mayor of Claycord interview. This wasn't on the Internet so as long as it can be verified that it's in-depth it could be usable. Still, this is a local radio station and an interview, so it poses those two issues.
 * Claycord Alexa. I've moved this to the infobox. Alexa ratings don't really count towards notability on here since it's more a sign of popularity than anything else. Popularity cannot show notability, although it can make it more likely that something will gain coverage. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Comparing this number to other sites' rankings doesn't really count towards anything and if anything, this was something that came across as very promotional. I won't bother listing the other sites' alexa ranks in this list.
 * Pasadena News. Dead link. It backed up an award, but the thing to take into consideration is that most awards are considered non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I always like to say (and I've heard others say this as well) that less than 5% of the awards ever given would show notability (sports, writing, etc) and of those, less than 1% would be the type that would give enough notability to keep on that basis alone. This is a local award from what I can see and it's only really garnered local coverage, so I don't really think that this would give notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. No problem with it being listed here, though.
 * Oakland Tribune. Local paper for same award.
 * Mercury News. Ditto
 * CBS Local blogger. Dead link. It's also a local source and considering that this had "blogger" in the URL, it possibly could have been considered a self-published source if this was a portion of the site where users could submit their own content.
 * Diablo. A page about the awards, which the magazine gives out to local businesses, people, and sites. The award doesn't seem to be the type that would give notability on Wikipedia.
 * KRON. A repost of a story from Claycord, so this is a primary source.
 * Contra Costa Times. This mentions the website and says that the content was posted there, but this isn't really something that would give notability. The mention is so brief that it's a trivial source.
 * CNN. This doesn't really state that the material came from Claycord, but the issue is still that this would be a trivial source at best since the website wasn't the focus of the coverage.
 * Claycord.com. This is a screenshot of a Fox News piece. The photo was used, but I don't see any of the sites saying that Claycord broke the story. Even if they did, this isn't really the type of news story that would show notability for the website.
 * CBS Local. Same thing, only it's a news story instead of a screenshot. The site is briefly mentioned, but it doesn't really explicitly back up the claims. I don't doubt that Claycord broke the news on this, but this isn't really something that would show any true notability.
 * CBS Local. Same thing here.
 * CBS Local. Same thing here.


 * In the end all we really have here are a handful of interviews by local sources. I'll try to find more coverage, but I don't particularly see where this site has really been covered by any news site that isn't from the same area. Some of the site's news stories have been posted elsewhere, but that in and of itself isn't something that would be notability giving. It makes it more likely that there would be coverage and it means that we could very likely use the site as a reliable source, but that is also not something that would give notability. I'm leaning towards a delete on this one since all we really have to show notability are a handful of interviews through local sources and one article, also written by a local source. None of the awards are the type that Wikipedia would consider notability giving, as they're all local awards that do not appear to have received coverage outside of the local area. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. A search didn't bring up much, just this brief article by the SF Gate. The issue of it only having received local coverage still exists and I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really assert notability in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2015 (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.