Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GotNews

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GotNews

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined PROD because of objections raised on the talk page. However, I believe the article needs discussion at AfD. My own opinion is that the website GotNews is not notable; all of the references are about its creator, Charles C. Johnson, rather than about GotNews. I am neutral about whether this article should be deleted, or converted into an article about Charles C. Johnson. MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles C Johnson, where the blog can be mentioned. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "Redirect," do you mean rename the article and rewrite it to be about him? Because there currently is no article about him to redirect to. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The subject is clearly not notable. If someone wants to write an article about its creator, let them do so in the future, and his notability can be discussed at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Duh - didn't notice I was voting on my own nomination! Please ignore the duplication. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG; no sources that cover the actual company itself, possibly create an article on its founder and selective merge? Esquivalience ^t 02:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would have qualified in December/Jan for CSD G5 due to creator's topic ban. WP:WEBSITE is the correct guideline, WP:WEBCRIT 1. needs evaluating 2. clearly not
- Delete WEBSITE "be notable and of historical significance" it currently appears to be WP:NOTNEWS (more about the website creator who may or may not be notable) and overall WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.