Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gossip Cop

:{{la|Gossip Cop}} ([{{fullurl:Gossip Cop|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gossip Cop}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{find sources|Gossip Cop}})

delete founding by notable tv host. but it is launched at July 2009 and 3 of 4 reference source links from this website. Localteche (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There are reliable sources cited in the article that cover the website in plenty of detail, and a few more reliable sources can be found by doing a simple [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22Gossip%20Cop%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn Google News search]. Timmeh {{small|(review me)}} 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gossip Cop||}}

• Keep. Our article cites articles coverage of the subject in the NY Times and NYmag. That satisfies WP:GNG - but only just. If the article (or the subject) was longer in the tooth, I would want to see more coverage, but both are new. And that's a problem. This article was created on August 3d; it was proposed for deletion on the 6th (and poorly at that; the nominator failed to notify the article creator and did not include an appropriate edit summary). In my view, see User:Simon_Dodd/Some_AFD_considerations#When_to_nominate, we should heed WP:FAILN's encouragement to use less terminal measures against an article before nominating it for deletion, and that is particularly appropriate for a new article that is otherwise unobjectionable and whose subject has at least a faint glimmer of notability. Strangling an article at birth at AFD is potentially counterproductive and inefficient, and (unless the article is patently unencyclopædic) generally yields no benefit to the encyclopædia that would counterbalance the risk. I'm a deletionist, but this article should not have been nominated so soon after its creation; other avenues should have been pursued.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

: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.