Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Gazette (website)


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Manchester Gazette (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I created this article to tidy up after finding the website's logo and URL added to the article for the defunct newspaper of the same title, but there now seems to be no indication that the website is actually notable. It was dePRODded, without comment, by an IP editor in their first edit. Pam D  12:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• manhistorian I would suggest keeping the article, the vast majority of people who view the MG article are in fact looking because of the online Publication. —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - A sole Manchester Evening News hit here (in the article at the moment) seems to be the extent of reliable source coverage. Other hits seem to suggest the site is some sort of front for the English Defence League. It's irrelevant how many clicks an article gets, a search for sources brings up the 19th century version. I'll just go and ping Eric Corbett, our local Mancunian historian, to see if he knows more. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - as failing WP:GNG. It is significant that all but one of the news hits relate to its own website. The lack of coverage, and lack of attribution, by other reliable sources strongly points to non-notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2013 (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.