Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaGurl TV


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

JaGurl TV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable news outlet, no coverage and the sole independent source in the article is clearly a paid for PR piece. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This outlet is a credited Google News Publication by Google. This was not a paid PR piece. There are many sole independent sources used in the article of many news publications including The Shade Room, Bossip, Black Enterprise and more. This news publication has many notable mentions and numerous stories on the web, including references on many Wikipedia pages. Marie610 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020
 * Delete Not notable. While this website may have potential, it seems to have only local notability at the moment, with only a few articles about the company and the founder. In addition, there are not sole independent sources as User:Marie610 mentioned above. I looked at the article and did some searches of my own, but there were few to no mentions of JaGurl TV on the publications listed above. The website looks to have potential, and I wish the creators luck, but I think WP:TOOSOON applies for now. Mukedits (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep In respect to User:Mukilteoedits counter agreement, when I stated sole independent sources, I was stating that here on Wikipedia there are many other news publications that were created that have used their own website as a source reference including the Wikipedia pages of The Shade Room, Bossip, Black Enterprise, Hip Hop Weekly and more. I based the outline of JaGurl TV after reviewing those news publications Wikipedia pages to assure that I mentioned notable facts. The publication JaGurl TV has been around for years, and has broke news stories having been mentioned on other Wikipedia pages and websites as a source reference. When I Google search the publication, they have hundreds of articles in the Google News tab referencing to their direct website. I believe that kind of notability as a Google News Publication passes the WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie610 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot vote twice at an afd. Tknifton (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot use only primary sources to support an article, there must be reliable, secondary sources as well. The fact that other pages have used their own websites to reference their own notability is irrelevant to the notability requirements. Mukedits (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note Creator and only keep voter, User:Marie610 has been blocked for WP:UPE. Tknifton (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep After doing online research on the publication, it looks like they have a lot of news coverage. They don’t have many notable mentions, but Google does state them as a certified news publication. The page has enough sources to qualify under WP:PROVEIT.Looks like they qualify under news media. The articles on their website passes the WP:SIGCOV covering news with significant coverage. Creator User:Marie610 is disputing their blocked case stated on the user talk page, and they stated they haven’t been paid and explained. I say keep it. Looks like their adding to Wikipedia in a positive way. — Chuck99999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:58, 23 April 2020  (UTC).
 * It appears that you have misinterpreted the above policies in some way. WP:SIGCOV requires external, independent and reliable sources to clarify as significant coverage not articles created by the organisation themselves (In this case news articles they created do not contribute to SIGCOV of the organisation). WP:PROVEIT refers to article content not articles themselves the article subject still needs to pass WP:NORG. Tknifton (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of the article creator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. This article was created by a banned user. Alexlatham96 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2020 (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.