Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Post Globe

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. Sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Post Globe (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)

Three years defunct blog; old stub article without references. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though whether a valid deletion rationale was given is unclear, this does indeed appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NWEB. A few sources upon its launch, but no enduring in depth coverage. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A search oF Wikipedia itself uncovers 10 mentions of "Seattle Post Globe". Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of a site in Wikipedia doesn't indicate notability. It has to be be the subject of independent, secondary reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If usage as a reference in other Wikipedia articles counted, one of my own articles would be "safe". Pax 04:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Links from other articles are accepted as one of the nine Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. See WP:MANYLINKS: "Even the bare mention in other articles demonstrates notability." – Margin1522 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It wasn't a blog. It was an online news site founded by reporters who were laid off when the Seattle PI ceased publication. It continued for 3 years but never developed a viable revenue model and shut down after the reporters left, some because they found work elsewhere. In that sense it was part of the story of the continuing crisis of local newspaper reporting in the US. I think the article could be expanded to reflect that (WP:HASPOT). It was mentioned along with similar sites in this book, discussed twice by the Columbia Journalism Review [1][2], and on local sites [3][4]. These are reliable sources. I think there's enough material for an article there. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if was notable at the time, then Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to Margin1522 for discovering sources establishing notability. Notability is not temporary, so the fact it closed is not relevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 11 January 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.