Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Digital Times

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Digital Times[edit]

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

NN website.The content of the website is cited in many reports but none of them has significant coverage of the website itself.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom. Ansh666 02:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No offense, but I retain my opinion at the deletion proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia. I would like to invite the upcoming Wikipedians to look into links like [1][2][3][4][5][6], and so on - same as what I listed in zhwiki. Plus, this site has been ranked around #210k on Alexa Global traffic stats. Many websites less popular than CDT (or even without a satisfying Alexa traffic rank) were recorded in Category:News websites and/or Category:News aggregators. Such as Jurnalo,Tahitipresse, just to list a few. Thanks. Kou Do u 05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (note: I changed the category links from using <nowiki> to using [[:Category:Example]] Ansh666 07:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a pretty influential online magazine whose reports are frequently cited by academics and other news outlets.TheBlueCanoe 12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a 3rd party that proves it is notable (it is blocked in China) and it is a popular website. Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (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.