Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination)

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpEdNews

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

Re-nominating after being a no-consensus close two months ago. There are no sources about the subject available to build an article, does not meet our standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:N as there isn't significant coverage of the website in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact on the web. Them From Space 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find solid RS coverage/mentions. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No articles about it in the NYT, which makes me suspect it fails notability. Ranking not even in the top 50,000 web sites on Alexa makes me also doubt that this is an "important article" either. This is without prejudice should it actually achieve any fame, but it does not appear to have reached that point yet. Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2013 (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.