Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caledonian-Record

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The result was Keep as per consensus (nomination withdrawn), and improvement. Peacent 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caledonian-Record

Caledonian-Record (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable local newspaper for a town of approximately 7500 Nomination withdrawn per notability established post-nomination sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? Just wait until an admin closes the discussion? Ben 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This paper is the only paper for the entire Caledonia County. Additionally, it circulates rather extensively in Orleans County as well. Further, it is a historic paper, publishing from the 19th century. It is a daily paper, quite rare in Vermont. Only eight papers dailies in the state.And how many newspapers founded as "pro-Whig" are still publishing? This one! Student7 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Continue adding those claims to notability with sources into the article and you'll have a speedy keep. Canuckle 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, not a lot of relevant Internet hits. User:Student7's claims might assert notability, if only I could find any sources to verify them... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, makes several notable claims that are well sourced. Easily a notable paper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A small paper in a small region is analogous to a large paper in a large region. The Caledonian is important to not only Northern Vermont but Northern New Hampshire. It was the first paper in Vermont to publish online, and it is very old and has deep roots in the local society. When I was doing my research on it, I was amazed at the number of genealogical sites referencing the paper. Anyways, I added some more sources and the first online thing, so I most certainly believe this is a keep if it wasn't before. Ben 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, a small paper in a small region is analogous to a large paper in a large region doesn't make sense at all. Are you trying to compare the Washington Post or the New York Times to this newspaper? I read through the article and checked the references. I don't see what makes this newspaper notable? Nothing in the article even hints at it. So what if it was the first in the region to publish online...that doesn't make it notable. So what if it's a daily newspaper, definitely not notable. There is nothing in this article that proves notability. It might go against the norm in it's region, but that doesn't make it notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Firstly, what I meant was that you can't expect there to be a huge paper, like the NYT, in a small region with very few people. However, that does not undermine the importance: a small paper will be as important to a small community as a large paper is to a large community. Sorry for the confusion I caused: it was not intended. Secondly, this is a very old paper (170, to be exact), it was founded as a Whig paper (nowadays, few people have ever heard of the Whig Party or its significance in early America) and is still publishing, it has a circulation of 11,000+ in a very sparsely populated area of a small, sparsely populated state, it not only services one state, but two, it is a daily newspaper (save Sundays and select holidays), and it was the first paper in Vermont to publish online. With all due respect, sumnjim, I have a hard time understand what you mean when you state that "So what if it's a daily newspaper, definitely not notable. There is nothing in this article that proves notability." You do (pardon me, did) have a valid point when you said that the only two keep votes were from the two who had contributed to the article. As Student7 noted, he and I saw that this was an article with potential, but it did lack several major things. I cleaned it up some, and voted keep, which I felt was fully valid. I don't see where you are getting with noting that: it seems irrelevant. Yes, we did edit the article, but only to improve it because we felt that it could be kept. If I had wanted it deleted, then why would I have wanted to waste an hour of my time editing an article I wanted to delete. I do not see what you are getting at, I guess. Ben 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Everything in Vermont is small. Their largest mountain would be a speed bump next to the Rockies! Should that disqualify the Green Mountains? Many counties have the population of the state (and larger). Should that disqualify the state?

  Suggestion for the new entry on Vermont: "Harmless." (The next revision can contain an updated entry which reads "mostly harmless!"  :) (But perhaps this, too, is overreaching!  :) Student7 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't get the harmless stuff, but he does have a point. You can't pick out a Vermont article and delete it due to size. Ben 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I know you guys are partial to VT, and I have nothing against VT, however by looking at policy, it just doen't pass notability guidelines. You cannot say "everything is small in VT", so this is notable because (blah blah). You can't say "it has 11,000 circulation, so it's notable" (WP:BIGNUMBER). You can't say "it was the first to publish online in VT so it's notable", you can't say "it services 2 states, so it's notable", and you can't say "it's old, so it's notable". what has the paper done significantly to gain widespread notariety? what has the paper done to make it known? what has the paper done besides just print a paper that 20,000 other newspapers do?. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - 1) Well, there are only 1,500 newspapers in the country, I assume some of those are not dailies. That tends to set the upper bound on articles on newpapers. 2) Most people on the web get their news on the web or maybe tv so is it perhaps that you think that newspapers are passe and shouldn't be cluttering up Wikipedia? Seems POV. 3) The paper is conservative. I hadn't connected all the dots here before, but maybe this all started for that reason. Wikipedia is supposed to be liberally biased according to reports. Is this why this paper got nominated for the axe? 4) There's a lot of tiny towns in Vermont with a lot less moxie than this paper. Some with no people in them whatever! Are they in for the axe as well? 4) Does this mean that no school, church, college, or town can be in Wikipedia unless it meets some big city editor's idea of "notability"? People voting with their feet/market penetration means nothing? 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - First of all, there are more that 1500 newspapers in the country. Secondly, it has nothing to do with me thinking that "newspapers are passe", quit putting words in my mouth. I've stated it many times, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, because the newspaper hasn't done a damn thing "special" to make itself notable. It's just a rinky-dink newspaper that publishes online and publishes daily. BIG FREAKING WHOOP. Thirdly, the article didn't get nominated for the axe for anything else other than reason #2 above. Fourth, I've found other small VT newspaper articles as well (thanks to student7 for putting them all in a category for me) and I'm going to nominate them as well, as they are NN as well. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Student7, I don't think that you should get into WP:OTHERSTUFF. That will not advance the debate. I don't think that here is the place to accuse others of a non-neutral POV, if there is any place to do that at all. Maybe a source on the "reports" which accuse Wikipedia of a left-wing tint would be useful. He did use WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, though, even when he had stated that it should not be used. That's still a lot of newspapers, though. Ben 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note Please be advised that the only keep votes are from the only two contributing editors to the article --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• NoteAlso be advised that the original Afd nomination was made against a stub, quite properly. The contributions have been made SINCE the article was nominated. This isn't a case of original contributors balking, but new contributors who see promise in the article.Student7 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Isn't the paper usually a player in the New Hampshire primary season? I can't find a record of that to be truthful, but as a former resident I knew the paper for its political commentary, which traditionally is pretty conservative. Anyway, I think a newspaper with a circulation of 11,000 is pretty notable and the article has taken good shape over the past couple of days. I vote keep. H0n0r 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can't use WP:BIGNUMBER as a reason for keeping it. You guys are still failing hardcore at establishing notability. Being a daily circulated newspaper does NOT make you notable. Being a whig paper does NOT make you notable. Being able to claim that you published online first in the region does NOT make you notable. There is nothing special that this paper has done to gain notariety that my hometown paper hasn't done either, and probably about 5,000 other newspapers. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (please note I was canvassed to come here) - This is a 170 year old newspaper and the first in the state to go online; both notable features and it is well sourced. I generally consider daily papers as significant enough for an article provided there is something encyclopaedic to say, as there is here. I fail to see how deletion would improve Wikipedia. TerriersFan 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Anybody can have a claim to notability, because anyone can lie, I'm not saying they're lying in this article, but anyone can have a claim to anything, doesn't mean it has to be true or right. Anyways, about the article I agree with sumnjim, in WP:BIGNUMBER I have voted for several AFD's where a voter or the creator of the article says if you type xxx in Google, it comes up with 12,000 relevant hits So what?? we can't rely on googles page hits to write an encyclopedia! And to what TerriersFan said, I fail to see why the article on this newspaper will improve wikipedia. Just because it is a 170 year old newspaper doesn't mean we can put up on wikipedia, there are dozens, probably hundreds of newspapers someone could label "notable" that we don't need to put on wikipedia --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also voted in AFD's where voters say "if you type xxx on google, it only comes back with a few hits." You are absolutely right: we can't rely on google hits to write an article. This is a two way street. In addition, while this article does not blatantly say "This article is notable because it has x, did x, was x, and did something else x", it lets the facts speak for themselves. Are you expecting to go to an article, look at the first line, and have all the reasons it's notable laid out for you? If that is what you want, then there doesn't seem to be any reason for an article to be written if one could merely put the reasons it's notable. Notability should be woven into the article so that it makes an interesting read and provides solid, encyclopaedic knowledge while it is giving history, the current situation, etc., etc. Ben 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm here because I found canvassing on someone else's page. Circulation does not equal notability, nor do analogies to circulation numbers. NYT, etc., aren't notable because of circulation; they're notable because they are trusted sources for news and have broken more big stories than anyone else. As it stands now, the article does not meet the requirements for notability, because it asserts none. MSJapan 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not due to circulation (which isn't that impressive), but due to long history and considerable importance to the community. Sourcing is adequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sumnjim made a good point: don't use numbers in your arguments. Therefore, any argument citing the small circulation of the paper should be deemed invalid, as should Sumnjim's comment ("Not notable local newspaper for a town of approximately 7500") which cited the size of the town as a reason of non-notability. With that done, let's look at facts. This article has many sources. That certainly seems "adequate", if not good, and certainly meets WP:N. It has a long and rich history: 170 years old and founded as "pro-Whig", which is most certainly a rarity. Also, it received a good deal of press coverage in regards to the court case with Lyndon State College, which would seem to have it meet WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." It is also the only newspaper in the state to carry Ann Coulter's column. This adds to the uniqueness of the paper which is a part of its notability. It is also the first paper to publish online in Vermont: another first. The paper is the oldest in Caledonia County, Vermont: it would seem that it is quite groundbreaking. Now that the national coverage due to the court case has been added, this article seems to clearly meet notability guidelines. I fail to see why it should be deleted. Ben 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use big numbers in your arguments, hence the WP:BIGNUMBER, it doesn't say WP:SMALLNUMBER. And by the way, a circulation of 11,000 is teeny tiny, it hurts your argument more than helps it. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep with comment I was asked to come here. I'm not sure why. I don't have experience in this subject. My weak keep is based on the fact that this newspaper not only has been cited in the newspapers several states, but in the Washington Post. I can't pinpoint exactly what is notable about it, be it the historic value or its political coverage or the fact that it is mentioned as a complainant in a legal case which very well may have some legal significance (I know that's crystalballing, but, heh, sue me.) involving the disclosure of records in a murder case. That being said, I have participated in close to 300 AfDs. A common thread I see running through them is "I don't know it", which is pure BS. Also, there is "The article doesn't assert notability". My God, people, if you have enough time to sit there and fill out an AfD or comment on an AfD, you have enough time, as I did for the last hour, to pore through every detail about this newspaper, such as the above court case, its historic record, its claim as the first online newspaper in the state (which can be easily checked), its political pull (which also can easily be checked) or, how's this? The paper recently came under fire for refusing to stop running articles by Ann Coulter (one of only 40 in the country) after she used the word "faggot". I have seen many times where "the article doesn't assert notability" is used (Pollyfilla, Emily Hagins, Boogie Woogie (TV show))only to find some hint that this particular subject deserves merit, for whatever reason.--Ispy1981 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't argue the fact that the article isn't sufficiently sourced, but the sources don't establish notability. All they do is state exactly what you state in the article, that it publishes online, it's old, and has a circulation of 11,000. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reply I hate to disagree with you there, but, just glancing at the sources (which it's possible could've been added after the above comment), there are six of sixteen which denote that this newspaper was involved in a case before the Vermont Supreme Court. This includes AP and Gannett, which isn't minor. I hate to use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (actually, I love to, because I think OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is crap, but we're not here to discuss what Ispy thinks is crap.)but we have articles now that display less notability than this one, and that are going to continue to display less notability than this one, with circulation sizes just the same, and claims of being the largest or second-largest in the state or county and claims of serving a small area surrounding it. If Wikipedia is going to hold itself to a high standard of excellence, then OTHERSTUFFEXISTS MUST be valid at some point. Here's the difference between this article and the others--this article has the history of the paper in it, this paper has the notability of arguing a case before the Vermont State Supreme Court. This little paper (population 11,000) attracted the attention of the Associated Press and Gannett. Look at Winona Daily News, for example. Where's the notability in that? Because some rich guy bought it? You delete this one, you may as well go through and delete all newspapers with small circulations that are old and may be online (there are quite a few). If you can look at the article as it stands now, carefully look at the sources and still aren't satisfied with the notability of this paper, I'll walk away from this AfD and let whomever decide its fate.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispy1981 (talk • contribs)

• Well if you look at how the newspaper looked when I originally nominated the article...you can see why I nominated it. I did look for sources in google before nomination (not for # of sources, but just for independant sources that can back up notability) and nothing showed up (at least in my searches) in the first few pages that hinted at notability. Per the information given recently regarding the supreme court case, I'll go ahead and Withdraw my nomination --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Historic newspapers are important & a US newspaper published since 1837 is historic enough to count. I see the nominator has just withdrawn, and the process of improving the article & then withdrawing the nom. is the best possible end of an AfD.DGG (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2007 (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.