- 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addis neger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A conflict of interest with creation by User:addisneger. Not notable. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per being VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MuZemike (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many sources citing the paper. Ignore the fact that the user is VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The paper is sill notable. Sources:
- http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=5486
- http://allafrica.com/stories/200811070161.html
- http://cpj.org/2008/01/ethiopia-blocks-freed-journalists-from-launching-n.php
I found these sources within minutes of search. Give the article some time and it will eventually evolve. If the article didn't reach considerable amount of detail with sources after a month, than you should remove it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the addition of references and content referred to by Diaa. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The website seems to be notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to pass WP:Notability (web), by being the subject of verifiable sources. RockManQ (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources uncovered by Riaa establish notability the usual way. Article seems to have been cleaned up. WilyD 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references talk about the editor being sentenced. They're not about the paper. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 20 November 2008 (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.