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. Following deletion I will redirect it to Gawker Media which already has content about it. MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalopnik (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)

The article is almost entirely a synthesis of primary sources; no indication that significant coverage in secondary sources exists. I had redirected it to parent organization Gawker Media but was reverted without either explanation or improvement. Bringing it here per WP:BLAR. Huon (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I read Jalopnik. I would be tempted to Merge it into a single line as part of Gawker Media. The irony is that whereas the rest of Gawker's sites are nasty, and justify individual coverage on account of their controversies, Jalopnik is nice and consequently non-notable. The same is true of e.g. Foxtrot Alpha, Black Flag and the other sub-sites. On a wider level this is probably why Gawker has so much negative press - nobody writes about the good bits. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to purge all content then Merge, if you look at the Google News, all of the links are to do with Jalopnik as a source. Also I do not see any source indicating that they are notable on it's own. Donnie Park (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Next question is, if this article was deleted in 2006, how was this allowed to reemerge. Donnie Park (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gawker Media per Ashley. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Gawker Media, keeping significant sentences. Nordic Dragon 10:29, 19 February 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.