Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Metronews


 * 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 redirect to Press Communications. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Fresno Metronews

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsourced currently and I can't find anything fulfilling notability requirements. Nweil (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) *Delete per nom. WeWorkGuest (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Strike CU-blocked user's comment Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nweil (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 04:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. It existed and appears to be the subject of an important court case that verified the right of newspaper companies to deliver door to door. CT55555 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment, I see editors below have looked into this robustly and still found nothing more, so I would not object to the redirect, even if I have a slight preference to keep. CT55555 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Googling confirms the case mentioned by CT55555 exists, but I can't find any sources beyond the one they added to the article. A review of a major law database brings up only two passing mentions in law reviews (not enough to meet SIGCOV) and ~20 citations in other cases. Googling the case name only brings up the text of the opinion. At any rate, even if the case itself were notable (which I doubt), notability isn't inherited, and my preference would be to merge and redirect in that scenario. Unless other sources can be found, this article doesn't appear to meet GNG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this help?
 * 1) https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/31/32.html
 * 2) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1758835.html CT55555 (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I'd suggest redirecting to Press Communications as a good alternative to deletion. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those links are just the text of the opinion, as mentioned above. They aren't indications of notability (i.e., significant, independent, coverage about the court case). Even if they were, you still have the issue of inherited notability. I'm fine with a redirect if you have sources confirming that the proposed target is the same company. Our article only discusses radio stations in New Jersey. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article mentions their historical newspaper work further into the article. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Press Communications and merge the couple sentences of content, without prejudice against recreation if more sources are found later. jp×g 02:48, 13 December 2022 (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.