Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Report (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Totally agree! Lets delete it![[User:Yup69|Yup69]] ([[User talk:Yup69|talk]]) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
Totally agree! Lets delete it![[User:Yup69|Yup69]] ([[User talk:Yup69|talk]]) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Keep it. Many don't realize it is a satire page and the Wikipedia page for it is the best place to explain that. |
|||
I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. [[User:Jerappelle|Jerappelle]] ([[User talk:Jerappelle|talk]]) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. [[User:Jerappelle|Jerappelle]] ([[User talk:Jerappelle|talk]]) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:34, 19 October 2014
- National Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Further, currently is just a list of headlines that got picked up by other news agencies thinking they were legit or that others debunked. Only one sentence about the actual website. Page content is not actually about page title. Sources on page do not discuss the website/company itself or its notability. I think National Report is likely notable enough to have its own article, but current article needs WP:NUKEANDPAVE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree! Lets delete it!Yup69 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Keep it. Many don't realize it is a satire page and the Wikipedia page for it is the best place to explain that.
I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. Jerappelle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- There has been no improvement in the article since the beginning of this year. No one is working on it. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)