Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beast (newspaper)

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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beast (newspaper)

The Beast (newspaper) (nominated by user:70.56.209.158 -- Dsol 18:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)) This article concerns a marginal, local 'zine type publication which is not consequential or influential enough for listing in an encyclopedia. Why do all journalists and bloggers get Wikipedia articles about their businesses--just because their trade is writing? Why isn't there a Wikipedia article about Al's Towing of Lackawanna? Also, who would go to a general reference work to find out about a publication like this, if they really didn't already know about it? I think entries like this generally amount to little more than schemes to inflate the Google rankings for whatever page, and increase website traffic. Eyeballs can be monetized, after all. I'm not saying it's an outright scam; all I'm asking is, what purpose does this type of article serve and who is behind it? Discuss amongst yourselves...

• Speedy keep. Clear bad faith nomination. Vague objections amount to nothing without really providing a clear basis for questiong notability. This ip has about 5 edits, one of which was used to vandalize Mark Ames, co-editor of the other newspaper that Taibbi edited. As to the substance of the issue (though this nomination doesn't deserve it), I think the utility for the reader is obvious, especially for the reader having read a bit of/about the paper and wanting to know its history. The paper seems to enjoy fairly wide circulation, certainly has notable contributors, and is at least as notable as the many, many high schools which have articles. Note also that the article is a stub, and could probably be expanded with links showing syndication and discussion of Beast articles in larger media outlets. Dsol 10:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete There's nothing notable here, no references to reputable sources, just looks like self-promotion. 69.253.195.228 13:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete That would make a great slogan, "The Buffalo Beast: At least as Notable as Catholic Central High." As for my "vandalism" of the Mark Ames article, if you think adding a fact about the libel judgement against his newspaper, supported by a citation and a link to a reputable news source, is vandalism, then that just proves your own bias and bad faith. Maybe it's Dsol who doesn't deserve to be listened to. He probably works at one of these zines or is Mark Ames himself.

You know anyone can see your ip and past contributions, right 70.56.209.158? Here is a link to your vandalism edit. The edit didn't mention anything about libel, and included no link to a newspaper. Rather, it added the following quote to the article:

"That's it?? It must have been pretty easy to make a rep back then. That column's not even that great. Where's the invective? I was expecting some kind of gonzo tour de force... I guess even the great Ames had to compromise & sell out back in the day."

I don't think that denying this easily checked fact will add any credibility to your case here. Dsol 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: this anon user (the nominator of this spurious AfD) has also vandalised Matt Taibbi and my user page, and tried to blank my comments here. See the user's contributions for details. Warned and reported. Dsol 21:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Google shows a fair number of people quoting the articles, particularly the "Most Loathsome People" list. --SarekOfVulcan 00:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad nomination. Turnstep 16:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough for mine AFD notice restored. Capitalistroadster 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The paper receives a fair bit of notice in an immediate metro region of close to a million people. Expanding on the "Most Loathsome People" bit--the Beast received a bunch of national attention when the publisher was sued by Tom Cruise for libel over the contents of the article. 128.205.138.114 20:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC) <--- (that'd be me. Oops. Tom Lillis 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey, I've cited them. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Preaky 22:54, 24 November 2005 (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.