Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DailyTwoCents


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DailyTwoCents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable website with no significant third-party coverage. Article was created by one of the site's founders; possibly as part of the "SEO focus" mentioned in article. WP:ADMASQ, WP:PROMO may apply as well. -- dsprc  [talk]  19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete called two cents but the wiki page has minimal value, first link doesn't even work. Good luck to the organisation though.  Gregkaye (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. Jus  da  fax   21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Non notable organization. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No coverage, no notability. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize I don't get a vote, but I didn't do this for SEO. I did it because I do feel there is some notability. These sites are the only sites in the publishing sector that give members/writers a vote on all big decisions pertaining to site operations and all wholly owned and operated by writers. • Raradra
 * No, you're perfectly entitled to speak your mind here. What you said won't help much, though--you need to make a policy-based argument, and the easiest way is to prove that reliable sources have discussed your subject in some detail. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh I think after the original vote https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F92SF6J all the rest have been taken on the forum or on facebook. There are several articles about it but they're reviews and definitely promotional. • Raradra — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw those in Google as well; reviews from the NY Times would be fine, but not blogger reviews. :-) Ah well, look at it this way: you learned a bit more about Wikipedia's inclusion/deletion standards, and if DailyTwoCents keeps growing it will attract some media attention and another article can be attempted in the future. Agyle (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2014 (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.