Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep South News

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. Nakon 02:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep South News

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

Non-

notable newspaper. The article itself acknowledges that its distribution is very limited. Google finds 52 hits for "deep south news", many of which aren't related, and none of which include substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep South News is a small news company by definition. Having a presence on Wikipedia provides a sense of pride for our employees they have not experienced before. If Wikipedia cannot accept pages that define small businesses, that is disappointing. Is there additional information we can provide to have the page reconsidered? Thank you for the help. Lindsey.kim (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in the interest of its value as a reference work, Wikipedia is restricted to

notable topics. If anyone in the course of this discussion can provide evidence that the paper meets any of the applicable notability criteria, the article is welcome to stay. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:07, 20 February 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.