Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia
I am not sure if this scrapes across the |notability threshold or not, but if it ''does'', the article is going to need to be rewritten from the ground up based on reliable sources. The writing is highly unencyclop&aelig;dic to the point of implicating  and  (e.g. "Opinions vary on their success; for example, previous versions of this Wikipedia entry contained a vitriolic rant which, while ill-suited to Wikipedia's NPOV neutral tone, is indicative of the strong feelings that Indymedia can sometimes evoke"). At any rate, I'm not convinced as to notability beyond the server seizure (see ), of which there is some limited coverage by other indymedia outfits, and nearby news outlets (Wikipedia:EVENT#Local events seems to cover that). If this local indymedia outfit is notable independent of arguably notable events, why Bristol Indymedia but not Scotland Indymedia or Portland Indymedia? (But see .) Virtually every line of the article is cited based on work published by the subject of the article, and the sole independent source - a link to BBC news - turns out to be dead.  and  require more of an article than this. All in all, while I could be pushed back into the keep camp, on evidence currently available, I lean towards deleting. That position is bolstered by my suspicion that even if the subject is notable, Brian Eno was on to something: sometimes the fastest way to get something to where it needs to be is to delete it and start afresh, rather than getting bogged down trying to patch up a defective version. - Simon Dodd
— User:Simon, 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ORG||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:EVENT||WP:WAX||WP:BURDEN||WP:RELIABLE (Wikipedia:Notability)