Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EurActiv


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

EurActiv

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per my prod I stand by the claim that this article fails Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:V (relies primarily on self-refs). Nominator argues on talk that this is not the case, as the website is popular (Alexa rank in ~70000 - I don't think it is), and that it is often used a source by mainstream media (interesting claim, but needs reliable proof). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Piotrus. If kept, this article needs to be re-written from scratch. It's one of those typical self-congratulatory and overblown self-important pieces that many EU-related organisations/publications/research grantees/etc seem to think they have to dump on us. Claims of importance ("more than 675.000 readers") are all sourced to their own website. By the way, did I already tell you that my blog is being read by over 30 million people? Really! It says so itself. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and Randykitty. This article does not merit inclusion per notability criteria and per WP:PROMO due to self-citing. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasons cited here are related to quality, and fall under overzealous deletion. If you think the sources cited on this article aren't good enough, you should first attempt to fix the article before proposing it for deletion. There is no indication on the talk page of this article that any such effort has taken place, where evidence for its use as a source for mainstream media is provided. Betina (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Nonsense. None of the editors above argue that this article should be deleted because it is bad. The argument is that there is no notability. That on top of that the article is bad, is not a good reason to keep it, me thinks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Randy, please familiarize yourself with one of the key Wikopedia policies: WP:Notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 5 September 2013 (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.