Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Patriot

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 no consensus (thus keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Patriot

First of all, I'm flummoxed. I've been at Cal for nine years and have never even heard of this publication. If this is distributed free of charge on campus it must be somewhere I've never been to. But since this could be my oversight I tried to look into circulation numbers, but the Patriot conveniently forgets to mention them [1]. So I looked at independent coverage it received. It turns out (per Newsbank) that the editor was cited in one article in the Oakland Tribune on "Which political party has whinier children?" A check on Lexis-Nexis for coverage on University Wire gave me five articles total, all by the Daily Californian. So absent other sources I propose deletion as a marginal student publication with no non-trivial independent coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I think I see a strongly-worded editorial about trialsanderrors on the horizon.... a la the conservative campus paper, the Stanford Review's response to User:Aaron's afd: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVII/Issue_3/Opinions/opinions4.shtml (in which, for one thing, the editor mulls over the problem that university students are so busy that they just don't have time to argue effectively with Wikipedian afd research efforts). Bwithh 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh wow, I could add them to the AfD so that nobody can claim I'm favoring the Evil Empire down south. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hermmmm. I vote Delete for now. A Factiva search brings up a quite short CNN interview transcript with this publication's founder about the newspaper, as well as a shortish article about the newspaper in Time magazine in Feb 2003. That seems to have been enough shock value about launching a conservative newspaper on a an "ultra-liberal" campus to get attention from these media outlets. There doesn't seem to have been anything significant after these stories though. However, as I have expressed many times, news coverage, even in well known channels, does not equal encyclopedic notability - and these are quite shortish articles. It is unclear that this newspaper has attained encyclopedically significant status since its trumpeted beginnings. Bwithh 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It sounds like a somewhat notable publication since its been featured on CNN and Time Magazine. This nomination sounds somewhat politically motivated, and the article will probably grow as the publication grows.--MonkBirdDuke 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

well, of course trialsanderrors hasn't seen any copies around campus because the samizdat publishers can hear the medals on his political commissar uniform jingling from a mile away. Bwithh 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I admit I'm a card-carrying member of what is the true silent majority on campus, the Association of Students Who Don't Give a Fuck About Campus Politics. We tried to get our own magazine started, the "Daily Whatever", but for some reason we could never get it off the ground. ~ trialsanderrors 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This reminds me of The Stanford Review and its deletion process, which clearly was politically motivated. On the other hand, I agree with Bwithh that this publication has done little since its founding to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps the very fact that it's in a tiny minority is enough? I'm not sure, which is why my "vote" is weak. --N Shar 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Didn't the Stanford Review editorial express relief that the afd nominator was a Republican, so the afd didnt actually seem to be politically motivated? Bwithh 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think he expressed nonplussedness; something along the lines of "the fact that he's a Republican didn't make me feel better." In any event, N Shar's WP:NPA-violating statement is, of course, complete bullshit, as anyone who actually read that old AfD would have known. The Stanford Review article wasn't put there to promote the Stanford Review; it was put there as part of a walled garden to try to create notability for some guy's publishing company. Since it had never been improved upon by other editors beyond its original creation, it would have been illogical not to add it to the overall walled garden AfD. That's all there was to it. As for this article, I'm going to !vote a strong who cares. The paper may well be noteworthy, but this article sure doesn't do a very good job of asserting it, and I don't know enough about it to be able to try and fix it. --Aaron 19:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm inclined to be inclusive on political publications. I might have opined differently in the Stanford Review case because of the commercial exploitation of Wikipedia issue, but I don't see evidence of such here. ENeville 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per ENeville.Noroton 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't seem to be notable enough. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteUnless someone can find evidence of notability better than what is on the page now.Edison 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -- Nikodemos 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to remove this article, to me it seems that something does not have to be noteworthy to have an article written about it, but as far as noteworthy the Cal Patriot blog has recieved an honorable mention for Best Berkeley Blog by The Daily Californian. GreatGreg 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Best political blog" -- let alone this one's "honorable mention" -- from a student newspaper isn't even within shouting distance of "noteworthy". --Calton | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Bwithh; trivial reporting doesn't demonstrate notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not mention the unreferenced and boastful weasel wording. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Bill O'Reilly thing seems notable enough, but it needs a source. - Lex 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, Tewfik^Talk 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per ENeville. Non-NPOV material needs to be cut but could be a valid subject of a very short article; it additionally generated some media attention after having all of its issues stolen by political opponents. Dryman 05:55, 1 November 2006 (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.