Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOCAL.PT


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

LOCAL.PT

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a new online newspaper founded in 2012. No refs given. No other independend sources found. Article was written by one of the newspapers staff. . Fails WP:SELFPUBLISHed and WP:GNG. Ben Ben (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence found of notability, at best WP:TOOSOON. I notice the equivalent Portuguese Wikipedia page is also up for deletion. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deleted 03.11.2012 . Comment was without reliable sources .--Ben Ben (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete In fact goodness knows why this is at AfD: it's a perfect candidate for a db-web speedy deletion, as nothing in the article gives any indication of importance or significance. I am bewildered by why Rich Farmbrough declined the speedy deletion nomination. Searching for coverage is difficult, because you get numerous hits for web pages where the word "local" just happens to be followed by the abbreviation "PT". However, checking the first 60 Google hits I found precisely four that referred to the web site "local.pt": the Wikipedia article, the website local.pt itself, local.pt's LinkedIn page, and local.pt's FaceBook page. I tried including one or two common Portuguese words to try to force Google to give priority to pages in Portuguese (e.g. aos "local.pt", and dos "local.pt", and de as "local.pt", and so on). The result was that I found precisely one more page relating to this web site: local.pt's Twitter account. In fact, all my searches suggest that there is zero coverage anywhere on any independent source, since the Wikipedia article was written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest.JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks in depth coverage from independent sources and fails WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:GNG per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (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.