Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business Review

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 no consensus for deletion. There appears to be consensus to keep at least the Business First and Washington Business Journal, but the others are not so clear. There seems to be a growing thought that they should be all merged/redirected to American City Business Journals, and if this is the case, please take merge/redirect discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Review[edit]

Local business journal. An nominating all the journals linked off American City Business Journals Improbcat 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete These seem to be non-notable local journals. More to the point they and the listing on American City Business Journals for them seem to be intended more to promote the websites. Improbcat 16:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable publications. Before finding this AfD I found and A7-speedy-tagged the following additional journals:

They have since been speedied. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (for Business First); abstain on others — Business First is Louisville's only business newspaper and that makes it notable. Also notable is that it was the first "Business First". Also making it worthy for keeping is that we have references that refer to it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In all cases, these are probably the only business newspapers in the town. In the case of the Washington Business Journal, the article is weak, but the circulation is pretty large, and the journal often uncovers problems, scandals, etc. that then get covered by the Washington Post. I could imagine the article evolving to include examples of this. I'm pretty sure much reporting on Michael Saylor and the big problems at Microstrategies in the 1990s started at the WBJ. I agree that the American City Business Journals category is probably a form of advertising for the conglomerate (has it been nominated for deletion as a category?), but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Category:Business newspapers still exists and is probably very useful many. Scarykitty 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied lots of these, all virtually identical and spreading like a rash. Jimfbleak 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep washington Business Journal due to its extensive history and clear notability per Google News Archive. I would be cautious about some of the others particularly Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, but I agree that not every publication by this publisher is equally or automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: Nominator messed up when adding this page to the July 25 log--I have relisted it in the August 5 log. --Finngall ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American City Business Journals. There is no assertion of notability in any of the articles. A local newspaper is not in itself notable, even though it may be the first or only local newspaper in the town. If there is something significant about any of these journals it can be said in the article on the parent organisation as is the consensus and convention: [1] SilkTork 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and merge I think sections in the main article you mentioned is the practical way to go, for this and similar individual-market oriented periodicals in various fields. DGG (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are cheap, why not merge and redirect instead of delete? Just a thought. Mathmo ^Talk 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, I actually was thinking you were referring to another "The Business Review"..... maybe should have a disambiguation page there instead. Mathmo ^Talk 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are important, notable, in each metropolitan area. Bearian 20:05, 9 August 2007 (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.