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. Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FoxWeekly[edit]

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

Non-notable website that tends to re-hash other website's news or create barely credible original news stories. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant third-party coverage. Not even the sources discussing FoxWeekly's latest hoax cover the website itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is there. Their articles are published on Google news and numerous notable radio stations, celebrities and newspapers have picked up on their original content/articles. — Juice656 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Just saw Foxweekly today appear on front page news of MySpace as their news staff covered an original article from FoxWeekly. https://myspace.com/article/2014/09/19/fifth-harmony-will-release-album-in-december 98.249.241.179 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Dot says it's a hoax site that uses copyright violations to give itself a veneer or reliability. Admittedly that's some coverage in a reliable third-party source, but not enough to establish notability, and entirely unrelated to the current article content. I don't think we should become a part of the hoax. Huon (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Dot article is a 'misleading' or 'false' article. FoxWeekly has ALL its articles circulated through Google News. To get into google news, the publication needs to go under review by Google News Employees in which they perform a DEEP background check and review the content and its originality. Only notable news publications with strong original content are able to get their articles into Google news. FoxWeekly does not have ANY copyrighted content from other sites and does not perform any illegal plagiarism as said in the Daily dot article. FoxWeekly has been publishing articles for close to a year now and the original content has been mentioned and linked by numerous notable newspaper and magazines (MySpace, Huff Post, IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, Epoch Times, International Business Times, HotNewHipHop...etc.), since its launch. Furthermore, The Daily Dot is NOT a reliable source as it has been known to write misleading or false articles for attention. Their article makes no sense... 98.249.241.179 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discussing it in any depth at all. Presence on Google News is not an indicator of either reliability or notability. There's some pretty obvious conflict of interest going on here. Several accounts and ips working almost exclusively on topics related to this website and its owner. --Daniel (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rantic.com, and emmayouarenext.com are hosted on the same server. They are connected to FoxWeekly, who where the first Website who broke the News about Emmayouarenext.Foxweekly used to be a youtube spammer group named Swenzy (later "SocialVevo") and emmayouarenext.com resembles one of their previous schemes, a website with a countdown to a supposed announcement about the character Brian from Family Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.152 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . No sources that actually discuss Fox Weekly itself. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This is so obviously not a real company. It's a blog disguised as one. The company has no address and the phone number is an out of date Skype number. FoxWeekly and Rantic are run by the same guy. You can see his articles here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.249.241.179 - The guy has also tried and failed to make an article for his fake company "Rantic", voted to keep this one, and is also an aspiring rap artist nobody has ever heard about. It's embarassing that this article is even kept. 216.110.246.24 (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical case of one-man scamming show trying to use wikipedia to generate a genuine-looking smokescreen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierman (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP address of the primary contributor here is actually that of a DNS server. The user (talk) is well-versed in technology, and is trying to hide his or her identity. I believe further investigation should be taken here. As the agency FoxWeekly/Rantic supports censorship of the internet, the user is actually a direct threat to the existence of Wikipedia, and, I am scared to comment on this user with my primary Wikipedia account. I think Wikipedia should get a CheckUser to investigate this account and possibly related dummy accounts which have been in interaction with this account and the same articles, such as Scorpion293 (which has been deleted?), among others. For myself and others concerned with internet censorship, I request that if a corporation is behind these fake users, that Wikipedia make that information public. A DNS-spoofed account should be taken as a serious issue, and investigated thoroughly. — Internetfreedomfighter2002 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've got exactly one source that's actually about FoxWeekly - the DailyDot article - and the only information it provides is that they're a bunch of barely-relevant plagarists with a history of hoaxes. Any article that stuck to actual, verifiable facts would be entirely about how they're not notable in the slightest, so let's just save time and delete this whole thing as non-notable. - makomk (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly suspect that the information in the page is non-factual, and that this page was created as part of a massive hoax campaign. Business Insider reports that the supposed owner of the website (listed in the article) is fictitious. While I would say that the "Social VEVO" organization may be WP:NOTABLE, this article is not, and the reason it is maintained is to perpetrate a hoax. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above comments.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2014 (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.