Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christwire

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christwire[edit]

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

Although this does link to several instances of a news story where it was taken seriously, I'm not seeing an assertion or evidence of long-term notability. Kansan (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weal Delete - Ehh... iffy article, the sources are reliable enough, but fails the rest of the WP:WEB criteria. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I admit that my attention was drawn to this AfD because WP:IHEARDOFIT--the fake "gay husband" article is a meme of the week on a bunch of message boards. But I lean to keep because the cited source from The Atlantic points out that this wasn't the first time Christwire's satire has made it into the mainstream media. For me, that gets them past the hurdle of one-time fame.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I came to WP to find out if the site was genuine - assuming its notoriety continues, further stories/info/background/etc might be added to the article. I think the page currently serves a useful purpose and should be kept for now, pending the development of the site. Joel.Gilmore (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article because notable news sources and cable television anchors were citing it as a genuine news source. The Atlantic Monthly pointed out that it was satire, and this article makes it possible for news readers and viewers to fact check their sources easily.Ashwinr (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (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.