Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yallwire

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator and a blocked sock puppet. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yallwire

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

This article is about a web site with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides no independent sources. All references in the article are to their own web site. My own search finds only press releases. Although not a reason for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the articles reads like a press release, and there is the possibility of a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Only because I saw a local source called Times Georgian that made a reference to the website name. ... Kalakitty _talk 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I checked here. Is this the newspaper you are referring to? These three articles mention Yallwire but don't cover it. This may be the strongest statement with it being mentioned as "one of the top three country music and alternative music video sites". But that's still only a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (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.