Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's News Daily


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Men's News Daily
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability, secondary sources, neutral point of view, self-promotion VegetativePup (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My problems with the article are: lack of notability of the subject, lack of non-trivial secondary sources, lack of neutral point of view, and self-promotion by the author. VegetativePup (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm. I'm not really seeing the self-promotional tone or the lack of NPOV so much. And Google turns up plenty of coverage – in fact, this website is included as a source on Google News search. Meets WP:WEB. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further explanation, at the nominator's request:
 * "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"
 * First of all, I found a wealth of trivial mentions of MND (far too many to list), indicating that it's a well-established, fairly prominent website. That said, WP:WEB suggests that websites should be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works. Upon closer examination, many of the sources I located with Google only mentioned MND tangentially, although it's worth noting that they treated it as a fairly prominent site. Here are some sources that are independent of the subject that count as significant coverage:
 * is an article about MND that appeared in several major newspapers.
 * is a magazine article about MND.
 * is a published online work about MND.
 * describes MND as a "credible, daily news, commentary, sex roles, satire, irreverence, metropolitan trends," although I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source.
 * is a science journal that cites material from MND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.244.33 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
 * N/A


 * "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
 * Not sure if this applies. For what it's worth, I was able to find articles from MND on other sites, although I'm not sure if any one of those qualifies under this criterion.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep but rewrite. The current article is a combination of POV and OR,  but could be used asa basis for a proper article,I think the references are just adequate.    DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 22 November 2009 (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.