Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manchester Gazette

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. Sandstein 11:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester Gazette

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

One independent source - describing a minor run-in with the city council in 2013. Nothing else except Twitter and self-references. Not enough for WP:GNG. A previous article, with a different title, was deleted at AfD in 2013: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Gazette (website). No evidence that anything has changed. PamD 15:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link to the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Gazette (website) --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage does satisfy GNG. It is also slightly misleading to say that there is only one source. Apart from the Manchester Evening News article, it is cited by other sources in GNews and at least one source in GScholar (which I found by searching for the url). I am unable to confirm that there is no coverage in GBooks or GScholar citing the site without giving its url because of the level of background noise. The previous nomination should probably have been closed as no consensus. There were very few participants (no quorum) and their arguments depended on their personal interpretations of an almost completely subjective guideline. James500 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar hit does not create any notability for this website. I assume the hit is here. The report given by Google is at "Report on Final Demonstration", and gives a screen grab and the URL of the Gazette page in question. The Gazette's URL has rotted, but archive.org has it at "Salford University brings the future of live TV to MediaCityUK ". And, it turns out that the Gazette's page is a very close copy of a Salford University news item, which can be seen at "FascinatE brings the future of live TV to MediaCityUK".

So, we can summarise the report's content as: 'The Gazette copied the University's news page on the demonstration.' Mr Stephen (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be summarised as "we are interested in what the Gazette says". I didn't claim the other sources in GNews and GScholar were more than citations. Most of the notability comes from elsewhere. The article in the Manchester Evening News is certainly significant coverage as is the Gazette's very detailed article in alexa.com. James500 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was previously deleted as failing notability standards. I see no reason to reverse that decision or even an assertion that the subject may now have achieved notability. It's possible that such things can happen--I just do not see that it actually has happened.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2016 (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.