Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FVN - Fraser Valley News


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

FVN - Fraser Valley News

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a non-notable online newspaper. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the virtue of the deletion nomination, I want to mention that this article was initially tagged as a PROD, but the PROD was deleted by a new user, JB267, whose only actions were the removal of a dozen PROD templates. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Nominator has not made any case that the topic is non-notable, so I don't understand the nomination argument.  However, this article seems to be a C.V., and totally inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples: "...took a break from...to teach night school...", "While trying to maintain an acting career...", "...was involved with fundraising..." Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To be fair to the nominator, that's about as much a nomination statement as you'll find on many Afds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As written, this isn't even really an article about Fraser Valley News as a thing in its own right; in reality, it's a WP:COATRACK for the publisher's personal résumé. It cites no reliable source coverage to support any of it — the only reference here is a primary source citation to itself. And for added bonus, the article was created by User:Radiodon1 — the conflict of interest will become apparent if you check the publisher's name and résumé background again. All of which means that this isn't an encyclopedia article about a notable website — it's a self-published advertorial PR profile. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (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.