Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recharge newspaper - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article about a new newspaper, lacks circulation numbers or other assertion of notability (author removed prod) -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find a single source about this newspaper that isn't a press release or job advertisement. I thought that could be because all its sources are in Norwegian, but the newspaper is written in English, so I'd assume at least one independent English source would mention the newspaper if it were notable? Somno (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a similar search myself and failed to come up with anything. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. No sources appear to exist. Possible future notability, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have just contacted our editor-in-cheif Chris Hopson and he will find English or international sources confirming the launch of Recharge. Meanwhile, I would ask you to consider the fact that NHST Media Group have other global pulications such as Upstream and Tradewinds in our portfolio - both of which are world leaders in editorial coverage in their respective fields (oil/gas and shipping). Please advise me in what to do in this matter. Would you like me to post some online metrics? User:nicholaytehrani March 16, Oslo | Norway
- You might want to try reading WP:SPAM and WP:COI for a start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I have read the WP Spam and COI articles. As far as I can see there are no elements of spam in the article, the same goes for conflict of interest. We have tried to compare the article to "benchmark" newspapers such as The Guardian, where the language used is more or less the same. I am more than happy to edit the article or add/remove content, but I would truly appreciate if you could point out exactly what makes the article not valid. Thank you for your kind help. User:nicholaytehrani March 18, Oslo | Norway
The correct procedure is to delete for now, as there are no reliable sources available to verify claims to notability. This very well might change (even within a few months), in which time the article can be re-created with sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. The launch of a new journalistic product by a media group that is losing money might seem to meet some of Wikipedia's notability criteria in a time when closings are the rule. Recharge's notability, or that of its parent, might be more evident if Wikipedia contributors would take the trouble to read the languages relevant to the articles they propose to delete. There are plenty of mentions of Recharge -- not all sympathetic -- by non-conflicted sources in Norway, including the keenest Norwegian competitor of the parent company. -- That being said, the contributor who appeared above lobbying to keep the article might want to include reference to the controversy over whether starting new media products in the current climate was a smart move. --Mstarli (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (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.