Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWIRE

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. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UWIRE

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This does not appear to be an article about a notable entity. One of the article's sources is a self-published link listing the "affiliates" of the company, while the other is a deadlink that apparently references the indefinite suspension of the service. Due to the lack of independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage to the article's topic, the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's four sources: MediaShift, Chronicle of Higher Education, Arizona Daily Star, and Meridan-Journal. I suspect there'd be more if I searched longer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are four more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. Likewise, newspapers.com lists 1,369 hits for "uwire" from 1994 to present. The nominator claims to have looked at the sources currently in the article, but makes no claim to have looked elsewhere—despite the requirement to "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. As Sdkb points out, and as reinforced by the four sources I just mentioned, even a short search clearly supports notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references can be found in this search of Editor & Publisher, which provides good coverage of the newspaper industry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources can be found, quick search on Newspapers.com broad sufficient coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2021 (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.