Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacEdition


 * 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 Keep —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:26Z 

MacEdition


Previously speedy deleted as spam. Recreated by same author with fewer external links. Tagged for speedy deletion again; author contests this on the talk page. I'm not sure whether the site is notable, though the author asserts this is the case. I've decided it's probably best to decide the matter here. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author may assert notability, but I don't see where the article does. --Aaron 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If sites such as Gawker, Weblogs Inc, Metafilter, ThinkSecret and Slashdot are to be excluded from deletion, then so should MacEdition. Would marking the article a stub prevent the speedy deletion? There are ex-members of the MacEdition staff and of the Mac community who are likely going to be adding value to this article in the near future. -- Tomierna 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaron - for the main reason why MacEdition is notable enough to have its' own article (which will be expanded), please read the History section of Apple rumors community. -- Tomierna 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article DOES assert notability now, and as a Mac folklorist myself, I agree. This is certainly appropriate as a stub. Perel 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable part of the (admittedly strange) history of Mac journalism. Also, neither this article nor Spork Boards were valid speedy candidates in my view, so I'm not sure why they've been re-speedied so many times.  A proper AfD discussion was clearly in order as soon as the speedy deletions were contested. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:WEB, what's wrong with it being a stub. Just needs an expansion plus a cleanup. Ter e nce Ong 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, was important in its day and is part of the development of the mac.DGG 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does not appear to be too spammy! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which criterion of WP:WEB is supposed to meet? Recury 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Trollderella 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Sharkface217 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the above. RFerreira 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:WEB and of course WP:V. I'm sure it seems notable to its readers, but to society as a whole it just isn't. Recury 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a complete rewrite, but it's notable enough. --Dtcdthingy 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Simonkoldyk 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What part of this article is unverifiable? -- Rbellin|Talk 23:58, 1 December 2006 (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.