Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Currant


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Currant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:Notability, lack of independent reference sources, lack of significant coverage 5minutes (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's been covered by multiple news sources as a direct result of its stories being reported as fact. DS (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems quite significant 1.5 million view a month and sure this article can be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh1024 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the reasons put forward by DS and Josh1024, and believe that this website is notable. The article should be improved rather than being deleted. Given the site's history, it can be expected that people will check Wikipedia to see if it is a straight news site or satirical.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious keep. The fact that some internationally reliable news sources have taken some stories about significant individuals and promulgated them as "true" is possibly the most obvious notability  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If there are, indeed, obvious news sources, then if someone will improve the article by including those references (I'm only seeing 1-2 links - the vast majority of links are self-referential and not actual references to unbiased sources), I will happily withdraw my nomination. 5minutes (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless those missing reliable sources can be provided; otherewise, it's a speedy as non-notable website. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 06:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I added more references. If it was just one hoax/controversy, I would say WP:NOTNEWS but there have been a series of incidents mentioned in various media sources. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage, but it's still notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #2 - addition of a few sources of articles is welcome, but basically, that means we've got an article about a blog that's had a few outside references, an unreferenced statement as to its left-of-center politics, and absolutely no history. 5minutes (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just removed some POV content and the article as written, though far from perfect, meets notability standards. Andrew327 17:32, 13 February 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.