- 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 speedy delete as a hoax. This was tagged as an A7, but I've deleted it as a hoax given the situation. As stated below, a search brought up nothing to show that any of the claims in the article are legitimate. I have yet to hear back from Time Warner, but if CNNYAW was legitimate there would be record of them on their official website and the CNNYAW site wouldn't be hosted on WordPress. The article itself gave conflicting claims of when the site was established and it's unusual that a CNN affiliate would not have a listing or some sort of attention somewhere, especially if they are airing on CNN International. There was an award listed but from what I can see, the award does not exist. While there is a CNNYAW website, this appears to be a hoax in the way it's described here and I have to assume that they are an unaffiliated site that is trying to seem more official by claiming an association that they do not have. Now even if the site is officially vetted by CNN and part of Time Warner, there is no coverage out there to show that it would be notable enough to merit its own page. If there is evidence found that would prove the claims are true (and this would have to be official, via CNN or Time Warner's website), at most this would warrant a brief mention on the main CNN page but again, there's more evidence out there to show that it's not affiliated rather than it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: I have heard back from CNN/Time Warner and they have confirmed that CNNYAW is not affiliated with them. I have salted the article and if there are attempts to re-create this under any other name it should be speedy deleted as a hoax or G4 re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- CNNYAW (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)
Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Unable to find any reliable independent sources for this.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I remember seeing this just before another admin speedied it as spam. This could probably be speedied as spam again, but I'd prefer that this go through a full AfD instead. Offhand I'm not really sure that this would pass notability guidelines, especially given that the link to the CNNYAW site goes to Wordpress rather than to CNN itself, which is what you'd expect if this was owned by Time Warner. I'll look to see what sourcing I can find, but offhand this looks like it's probably either a hoax or something along the lines of the iCNN page. If this is either of those situations, I'd like to extend a word of caution: Time Warner goes after this sort of thing pretty viciously if someone misrepresents themselves in relation to their businesses. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like I was able to pull up a cached version, so there was something there in the past, but it's since been removed. This could be for a variety of reasons, one of which is that Time Warner made the site yank it down. I'm finding nothing to show that this is actually an official part of CNN or Time Warner at all. I'm going to e-mail them and ask for verification about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm now fairly convinced that this is likely a hoax or at the very least, far from what this article is claiming that it is. I found only one news story that actually mentions the organization. However at the same time none of the article's claims mesh with what I found on the Internet. It claims that it is part of Time Warner, has millions of readers, made over a million dollars in revenue in less than a year, and has won an award. With these claims you'd assume that they'd have a fairly visible Internet presence. However a search for the website brings up very little. Their Alexa ranking is abysmally low, which goes against their claims of millions of readers. Also telling is that the search brought up no mention of the organization in official Time Warner channels or websites, and if they're running on one of their television channels (CNN International) then there would be a mention of them somewhere. A search on the CNN website brings up nothing either. I tried searching for the award, but found nothing that mentions this award at all except for the Wikipedia article and the acronym NMA is fairly general at best and doesn't fit any of the award giving NMAs that pop up. Then there's the body of the article, which is written to give off the impression that it was launched in the 80s - which clashes with the claims in the infobox that this site is very recently launched. At most I think that this is likely something someone came up with on their own time and tried to use the CNN name without permission. If they were part of Time Warner, there'd be some mention of them somewhere and they wouldn't be using a WordPress blog site to host their news outlet. The website now comes up like it should, but the fact is that for at least a brief point in time it came up as a WordPress site and you can still see the WordPress logo in the top left corner. Again, Time Warner wouldn't use another company to host their material, or at least it'd be very unlikely that they would. Unless I get an email back from Time Warner saying that this is an official site, I have to assume that this is a hoax as it's written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked the editor for 31 hours for repeatedly removing the AfD notice despite warnings. If they are an unofficial site and are misrepresenting their affiliation with Time Warner/CNN, the block will become permanent. I think that this is likely an unofficial group that was put together, but not an official site in the way it's being represented here. If they are official and I get confirmation with Time Warner, I'll post that here. At the very least, however, the site appears to be non-notable regardless of whether or not it's part of Time Warner. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we could probably extend it to an indef for spam, given that they seem to have liberally sprinkled their website throughout Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Something else I noticed is that their Facebook page claims that they won a 2014 award, which I can also not find any record of and which also clashes with the article's claim that the website launched in 2015. This really, really looks bad. If by some chance this is legit, which looks extremely unlikely at this point, there's some serious work that needs to be done because all of this reflects very poorly on CNN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 27 January 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.