Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grio


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Grio
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No secondary sources to establish notability Nightscream (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream: Here you go, and I would be careful trying to delete the largest US African-American news agency - it could look very bad.

http://www.facebook.com/theGrio https://twitter.com/theGrio

David Wilson Interview, Founder and Executive Editor http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/the-grio-african-american-breaking-news-and-opinion

The Grio's 100: http://www.today.com/video/today/50693393 http://vimeo.com/60289249

NBC Launches The Grio: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Positively_Black__NBC_Launches_The_Grio_New_York.html

About the Grio: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/307624-5

NBC Universal Media Village: http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/thegriocom 66.91.118.141 15:37, March 14, 2013


 * Those are primary sources. Notability requires secondary sources. The only one of those above (which belong in the article, not in a deletion discussion), that appears to be a secondary source is the C-SPAN one, and there's barely any material at all in it. Next time you participate in a discussion like this, you might want to read what is said there, and learn what terms like "secondary sources" mean. You might also want to sign your talk posts. Not doing so could well, look bad. Nightscream (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: This does appear to be notable to me.  Of course, firstly, NBC News is a highly notable organization, and having a separate article for this division is a logical organizational scheme (cf., e.g., The Root (magazine), a division of Slate).  Second, I do see sufficient sources available to establish notability.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, another keep by Milowent. That looks suspicious. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And as it happens Milowent is completely right, as is easily proved via a simple Google News search. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Suggestion to nominator: withdraw. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Milowent found proof of its notability.  D r e a m Focus  04:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Milowent demonstrated the notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good research, above, shows notability and secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Suggestion to Drmies:
 * 1. Sources belong in the article. Not on deletion discussion pages. The article still does not contain those sources.
 * 2. You can indent your comments with bullets by placing an asterisk in front of them. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You did notice what Drmies's sole edits to this page were... right? So what is there to get mad about? Additionally, an asterisk in the middle of a sentence does not bullet it, it simply asterisizes. — Theopolisme   ( talk  )  01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't get mad, I was simply responding by pointing out that links to sources do not improve an article unless they're addded to the article. They don't go in edit summaries, deletion discussions, or any of other places that so many editors seem to think that they go. They go in the article in the form of inline citations.
 * As for my neglecting to mention the use of the "Return" button, point taken. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REFACTOR, though, why add the bullet? The whole thing was one clear, readable comment; what was the point in splitting it? (I suppose it does help those who prefer to read straight down the page, but that's such a minute benefit that...well, I digress and will just double his signature.) As far as The article still does not contain those sources., though, I guess I don't see why this needed to be addressed to Drmies specifically. :) — Theopolisme   ( talk  )  01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Milowent. – SJ +  02:07, 21 March 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.