Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandalpedia

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. News coverage is more than adequate to meet the notability guideline — Coren ^(talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandalpedia[edit]

Appears to lack notability independent of the Liberal Party of Canada. No sourcing, no evidence of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 Equendil Talk 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and maybe per G10 or G11 as well, for good measure MadScot (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008. There are plenty of news sources about it but not enough detail for a separate article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008 per DoubleBlue. Seems to be enough sources ([1], [2], [3]) for its on section on the target page --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canadian federal election, 2008. No evidence yet of independent notability, though it's gotten some publicity. For all that I'm a Canadian who dislikes Harper et al., do we really need to be giving free publicity to any particular party? I'd say that things like this press release only serve to vindicate my concern. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I share your concern and it underlines the need to guard against POV but this website has been discussed in many major newspapers, magazines, and TV news and we must also guard against a POV omission. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for some reason the original reference to an independent news organization (CBC News) was removed and the article was sourced to a Liberal press release. It's received attention and the federal election article will likely get too long to be out of proportion. An alternative may be a Political websites of the 2008 Canadian election or something to that tune. -- Tawker (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (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.