Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Cities Wire

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities Wire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Cannot find any secondary source coverage that meets requirements. Rogermx (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A high circulation is a strong indicator of notability. If a periodical has been read by ten thousand people, that might possibly be enough to render it notable. James500 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any source that verifies their circulation claims. In fact, none of the references for Twin Cities could be considered reliable or even relevant. Rogermx (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure how to go about checking that figure. Twincitieswire.com does not appear to have a page on alexa.com. Is there not something like the Audit Bureau of Circulation that can be used to check circulations? James500 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much no secondary source material on this at all. No substantiation of claims of circulation. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the circulation figure might potentially be an indicator of notability if it could be verified, but it isn't, and there are no sources about the publication itself that would pass this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 30 March 2018 (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.