Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStreet
Its voluminous sources notwithstanding, this article fails to demonstrate . Sources are either primary or trivial in their coverage. '''Side note''': I think we should take a deep breath before impugning the motives of new editors. I appreciate your strong advocacy in laying out the case against the article and mostly agree with your points, as evidenced by my "delete." But I am not so sure about your dismissal of trade publications. The simple truth is that many techy things are only covered by trade specific publications. If we preclude them entirely as WP:RS we will be setting up barriers to articles about legitimate topics. I would agree though that trade pubs need to be treated with some caution. Not all are equal
— User:Ad, 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)