Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Edinburgh News

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 no consensus to delete. Flowerparty■ 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Edinburgh News

non-notable paper with a non-notable article featuring non-notable editors authored pretty much by the same person. Also note that one of the two editors had a bio Carolyn Brereton that was successfully AfD'd and then improperly recreated. Speedy delete? Rklawton 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable local newspaper --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stev0 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Printed newspapers publishing real content of general interest, at press for thirteen years and running, are notable. Samaritan 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• The editor of a local community newspaper was a perfectly legitimate deletion; it's hard to make a claim that such people are notable enough for articles. However, for the publications themselves, the baseline criterion for inclusion is (or at least was, at one time — I can't seem to find the media criteria at the moment) a circulation of 5,000 copies or more, which this one certainly meets. Keep. Bearcat 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major Ottawa neighbourhood, and this is its community paper. Skeezix1000 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The neighborhood may be notable, but the newspaper hasn't got any verifyable presence other than some of its stories being copied to the community website. We can't reliably independently verify its existence, much less circulation numbers, content, etc. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but someone has to find the sources. Scanning in the circulation description from one of the recent editions (if Canadian postal regulations require one like US do) would probably be good enough, if someone can do that. Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Re the postal regulations, they don't. However, circulation information would certainly be helpful. Samaritan 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Such information would be useful, so I e-mailed them a couple of days ago asking about circulation and advertising rates. I received no reply. Maybe it's a non-profit paper. Or maybe it's somebody's hobby. Rklawton 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. --Someones life 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat. --D'Iberville 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to have enough circulation for a community paper to meet notability guidelines --Krich (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to find it. I've even e-mailed them without response. What exactly is this paper's circulation? Rklawton 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindenlea: this article makes it clear that the New Edinburgh News isn't a commercial newspaper at all. It is produced by the Edinburgh community association. Rklawton 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Moe ε 02:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable paper with a notable article featuring notable editors in a notable encyclopedia. It should be noted that notability is notably dependent on POV. Wikipedia as a notable encyclopedia serving the notable, less notable and not at all notable (not that this includes any of my notable colleagues who are notably here today), should notably strive to present notably unbiased information by ignoring our notably POV tainted notability censors and gendarmes. -- JJay 21:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you verify, in any way, the paper? Verifyability is the other cornerstone for WP. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have reread the nomination a few times and this nom has not in any way claimed that this paper does not exist or that there are verifiability issues with its two lines of text. Are you claiming that this is a hoax? That would be most troubling. Of course, the fact that it is listed in Ottawa newspaper lists [1] and [2] would seem to prove its existence. -- JJay 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of suggestive links around. I am not proposing that it doesn't in any form exist. I don't even think that. What I am saying is that we don't have enough info to verify that it's big enough or covers notable enough subjects to be a notable paper. I could start publishing a quarterly pamphlet out of my home, about events on my block, and set up as much web coverage and presence that NEN has, within 24 hours. We need some verifyable evidence that this isn't a vanity publication... like, circulation information, article information, etc. Anything... And so far we have nothing. For the love of god, someone who lives in Ottowa, please find a copy and scan it in or something. We need more than a few links and a Wikipedia page to base this decision on. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I respect your point of view, but you seem to be drifting back to that notability thing again, even going so far as to use the word "notable" twice in the second sentence of your response. I feel like I adequately expressed my feelings on that in my initial comment above. Since we both believe to the depths of our beings that this rag exists, there would seem to be little matter for debate between us, although I would tend to agree that further expansion from the article's modest beginnings may require additional information. -- JJay 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's back up a bit. You repeatedly say this is a notable newspaper. How can I verify that. What evidence (verifyable evidence) can you put forwards to justify the claim that it's notable? Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to have missed the sense of what I was trying to say. I suggest you read the deletion nomination for this page. Then read my comment. -- JJay 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not missing the point. We're both aikido-throwing each other. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy on articles requires notability, defined in a verifyable manner, and not simple existential philosophical arguments as to whether particular things are measurable or not and whether there's any indepentent poitn of view to be found. You can keep going, but you aren't fulfiling the Wikipedia requirement to keep the article, and it's going to get nuked. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please point me to that policy page. Also, since you have already determined that this article is going to "get nuked", why did you ask me a question in the first place? -- JJay 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • [[Wikipedia:Verifiability] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And you are mistaking the tense of the nuking comment: failing to support the article's notability and verifyability will lead to its deletion, which will happen because you're engaging in word games rather than providing verifyable sources on the NEN (and nobody else has, either). You can, in fact, change that outcome... by finding and providing adequate references. Georgewilliamherbert 02:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I am perfectly satisfied that the paper exists as indicated by the two links I have provided. You have admitted as much yourself. The article itself is two lines long and makes no claims beyond its existence. Note, as well, that this nomination is based solely on "non-notability". The nom has made no effort to explain what is meant by that and has offered no evidence to back up the claim. That does not work for me, because to spell things out in plain language and for the last time, notability does not enter into my thinking. I do not believe in that tattered POV concept since its definition varies from individual to individual. What is "notable" for you is not "notable" to me, etc. etc. Thus, it has no bearing on me when considering a school, newspaper, book, film or numerous other categories of articles. I will not now, or in the future, make a vain attempt to support this article on that basis. If we have a guideline page for weekly newspapers that lists certain criteria that should be met, I would be perfectly happy to see New Edinburgh News judged accordingly. Since to my knowledge we do not have this guideline, and we have no real policy on "notability", I choose to apply my personal criteria, which is that all newspapers should have pages here, including community newspapers, school newspapers, pennysavers, whatever. If these are word games that lead to the "nuking" of this article, depriving our readers now and in the future, of any knowledge of New Edinburgh News, then I stand accused.-- JJay 03:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:04, 2 April 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.