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. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABCnews.com.co[edit]

ABCnews.com.co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm just not sure this one is notable. Good faith attempt by article creator here. But do we really have in-depth discussion? It seems like all this page will ever be is a bunch of brief examples. Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep absolutely notable: coverage in many mainstream sources, gets lots of traffic, and people are looking for information on it. This site in particular has been the subject of wide-ranging discussion and coverage this fall, and is by the standard of any other subject certainly notable and worth an article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - seems to have sufficient references to be notable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's not give any attention to a site whose notability is based merely on a typo and propagating complete garbage news. We don't have an article about Gooogle.com, this shouldn't even get the time of day. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Withdraw my nomination. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - SwineHerd, a nomination cannot be withdrawn if someone else has supported deletion. As deletion discussions are typically contentious spaces, please spend more time participating in discussions before trying to close them. Only in the most obvious cases should a non-admin do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge to List of fake news websites or Paul Horner. There are many sites which participated in the same sort of activity, often covered together. There's coverage of a few specific stories it has posted, but I'm not seeing much coverage of the site itself beyond one-two sentence descriptions and the coverage of Horner. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of significant coverage. Also, a wikipedia page on the subject provides a valuable service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In an age of fake news, hoaxes, and propaganda, this is necessary for our core readership. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2016 (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.