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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsea Asian American Daily[edit]

Goldsea Asian American Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A Google search shows that Goldsea is indeed an important website/newspaper. However I could not find any objective coverage of it in reliable sources. The article only cites the site itself and one or two blogs that criticize it and consists of mainly a lot of original research about controversies and so forth. If an objective article could be written that would be great, but as it is now I think it is better to delete this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Asian Americans has been informed of this debate. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. News hits [1] consist of quotes or citations from their website, not articles about their website. Gbooks hits are a bit better [2] with a short profile of the site [3] and a bunch more citations of articles they wrote, but still not enough to establish notability in my opinion. Blog hits are, of course, ignorable. I don't find any support for their claims to be the "World Wide Web's biggest and most popular Asian American site" or "first Asian American media website". cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if we had an overall article on the topic of Asian American internet forums (you could probably write such an article on the basis of books like Lee, Rachel C.; Wong, Sau-ling Cynthia (2003), Asian America.Net: ethnicity, nationalism, and cyberspace, Routledge, ISBN 9780415965606), this title might make sense as a redirect to a list section there, but not as a stand-alone article. cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another issue that should be mentioned is that the article seems to be accusing the people involved with this site of "yellow supremacy" (if you'll pardon the expression). I think this is a rather serious charge, which could even be career damaging, to make on such poor sourcing. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current article is written badly enough that it's ambiguous whether it's a promotional page or an attack page; whichever it is, it's a website that doesn't make a strong case for notability under the guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (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.