Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California: Difference between revisions
Listing Masjid Annur Islamic Center |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid Annur Islamic Center}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid Annur Islamic Center}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia Mendoza}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia Mendoza}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Virginia Whitley}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Entertainment Monthly (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Entertainment Monthly (2nd nomination)}} |
||
===Proposed deletions=== |
===Proposed deletions=== |
Revision as of 00:50, 24 June 2010
Points of interest related to California on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Purge page cache | watch |
California
- 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Masjid Annur Islamic Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims to be the largest mosque in the greater Sacramento area. (Granted, Sacramento is the capital and seventh-largest city in California, so this is not claiming to be the largest in East Podunk or something.) Still, Gnews archives show a few articles on the impact 9/11 had on the attendees, an article about their school, and a few others but nothing that seems to make this particular mosque significant. Speedy was declined (though editor/admin noted that they thought the Mosque was the largest in the whole State of California), PROD was removed by another editor because of belief that Mosques are "under-represented" and of the school associated with the Mosque. The school does appear to have more coverage but I'm not an expert on school notability guidelines. However, I don't feel that the Mosque itself has met notability guidelines per WP:ORG. If the school does, the article should be on the school and not the Mosque. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The school is apparently a high school, so would definitely be considered notable. Might be best to create "Al-Arqam Islamic School" and merge the information here into that.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - largest mosque in the metropolitan area of a major city, significant GNEWS hits from WP:Reliable sources about involvement in fund-raising for the Pakistan earthquake, Muslim community relations, etc. Many of these are unfortunately behind paywalls, but not all. I'll try to improve it. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yep, i removed the PROD and I noted in an edit summary that it includes a high school, meeting notability directly by that. I think the article should stay about the mosque first, and include the school coverage; the school is one program of the mosque. That one program suffices to establish notability already, but the mosque is more notable, really, whether our easy-to-apply standards recognize that or not. I also noted in passing that I do believe that mosques are under-represented. (Aside: I believe there is exactly one mosque listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, whose 85,000 listings include probably 100 places named "First Presbyterian Church", and thousands of other churches. There are 3 other NRHP-listed places with "Mosque" in their name but those are Shriners/Elks/Masonic club places.) --doncram (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As a WP:CAL member, who just went through our deletion sort, I am somewhat shocked to see this center listed. I am not of this faith but aware of all three centers/mosques. This one is next to the old Florin Mall and when it was bought was a major deal in many ways in Sacramento, California. I've incorporated some of its history into a new section that gives the following editors/readers how this center evolved from humble beginnings to the purchase of a former sporting store complex if memory serves me correctly. If one were to follow Highway 99 north to westbound Interstate 80, the next mosque is in West Sacramento and by the eyeball is considerably smaller. Driving towards San Francisco, California the largest mosque sits just past the American Canyon, California region. That one is a very large traditional mosque and I've told friends that even we as Americans should marvel and respect what the Muslims have accomplished in our melting pot. Most of this is not WP:V but as Jimbo Wales would say, "Would I lie?" The basic answer is no because if you delete this, then WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and becomes Buggs (keep) versus Daffy (delete). ----moreno oso (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cordelia Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local businessperson MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are a lot of references - the author has worked hard on this article - but the subject does not qualify as notable IMO. The subject has received a few minor awards (one from the local Business Improvement District, plus one out of many "Readers Choice Awards" from the neighborhood paper). She has been quoted in some articles from Reliable Sources, but they are a one-paragraph quote - they are not ABOUT her. She has done local philanthropy work. All in all she sounds like a good person and a contributor to her community, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but this subject is not notable enough. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know how appropriate it is for me to comment, since I wrote the article, but the person, according to articles, has been a merchant in Ocean Beach for 20 years and has been given awards and recognition for the town getting that designation of antiques district. Perhaps that isn't highlighted enough in the article? The Daily Transcript, the legal newspaper of record in San Diego, described her as a pioneer in establishing an antiques district in San Diego. It is a destination, whereas two decades ago it wasn't. Perhaps it wasn't made clear enough in the article. For that, according to the articles, she has been recognized by the California State Legislature, the Small Business Administration of San Diego, the merchants association, local newspapers and a TV station. I put most of those things in the article, but they're spread out. I will work on the article to improve it and include more references to show notability, per Wiki quality and notability standards. Thanks very much. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Successful businesswoman of note to her community, not notable enough outside it. Sometimes hundreds of people per day are given recognition by the state legislature.Minnowtaur (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am adding to the article & including more than just a businesswoman of note. Her volunteerism is lengthy. I only included some of it, but there's a lot out there.AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Extensive sourcing demonstrates that the subject clearly meets the GNG. The discussion here seems to focus on whether she should be notable, which is not really among the deletion criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - looking through the numerous cites, independent coverage is trivial or purely local. Nothing of significance to pass WP:GNG.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and merits for Keep - I found and have added, since the nomination, verifiable and reliable sources for stories where she is either the only one quoted or featured in the article, since MelanieN stated that was needed when she nominated the article for deletion. Also, Re: 70.80.234.196's reason for "delete," because the sources are "trivial" and "purely local," while that's not a bad thing, it's not exactly accurate. The Daily Transcript, San DIego Union-Tribune, San Diego Magazine, & San Diego News are hardly trivial or purely local (the San Diego Union-Tribune is considered a national newspaper, & San DIego News -- with a bunch of area papers -- is regional), especially being written up in publications that cover the 2nd largest city in the state of California & the 9th largest in the nation (according to Wikipedia). She was included in the Christian Science Monitor as well, also cited in the article, and that too is a national newspaper. Thanks in advance for your time. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let's take a closer look at those sources. From the San Diego Union-Tribune, two cites: the first is something written by her sister (not independent coverage) about her surgeon who just happened to save her life. The second one "Garden variety: Tours celebrates county's bounty" has no mention of Cordelia Mendoza. So coverage from the San Diego Union-Tribune does not establish notability. San Diego Magazine: first cite, no direct coverage (no mention of her), the second (vol 48, pg 68), trivial coverage. From the Daily Transcript: it's hard to say if the award is notable and/or if this is a press release, anyway, per WP:ANYBIO the award is a local business award and not well-known. San Diego News offers routine coverage of local community events, she's mentioned in your basic run-of-the-mill community fundraisers. The coverage by The Christian Science Monitor, finally, is, again, nothing more than a trivial mention, nothing of depth. So, in my view, this appears to be a case of puffery.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- To clarify: The 1st citation of an op-ed piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune was to cite the reference to the Heart Fund Association and volunteerism; the 1st reference of San Diego Magazine wasn't in reference to the subject; it was included as a citation for the reference of Ocean Beach and "Antiques row" as a tourist shopping destination. Citations by other newspapers quoting her is that she appears to be a source for newspapers when they're looking for someone to quote. As for the Daily Transcript, they had a blurb about her and others who were given annual awards, not in a press release but in the newspaper. There is an accumulation of awards at different levels, as well as volunteerism not just locally for a main street organization, but for a nationally known hospital and a national animal group, and not a flash in the pan but on a sustained level of many years. I guess I'm confused how by writing a NPOV article with citations and sources in a factual way can now be referred to as "puffery." AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW please note that there is no such newspaper as "San Diego News". The website "sdnews.com" is for the San Diego Newspaper Group, which publishes several free weekly community papers, including the Peninsula Beacon which covers Ocean Beach. Citations in this article to "sdnews" are actually to the Beacon. I would not consider the Beacon a "reliable source" - it uses freelancer reporters as well as staff writers, and its editorial standards are not high. In addition, it is purely local; it just serves the Point Loma and Ocean Beach neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, San Diego Community News Group is SDNews.com online, which purchased the Beacon in 1990, and renamed it the Peninsula Beacon because it covers both Point Loma and Ocean Beach and outlying communities in the area. According to the Library of Congress' listing, the Beacon published from 1983 until 1990 when SD Community News Group purchased it. I'll make a change in the article to reflect the actual name of the newspaper rather than the name of the paper's online site. Thanks for pointing that out. As for freelancers as opposed to staff writers, big and small newspapers and magazines throughout history have called upon the reporting of both freelancers and staff writers to flesh out their news coverage. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: 2 out of 5 of the references -- used as reliable sources -- in the Bennie Edens Wikipedia article were from the Peninsula Beacon. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW please note that there is no such newspaper as "San Diego News". The website "sdnews.com" is for the San Diego Newspaper Group, which publishes several free weekly community papers, including the Peninsula Beacon which covers Ocean Beach. Citations in this article to "sdnews" are actually to the Beacon. I would not consider the Beacon a "reliable source" - it uses freelancer reporters as well as staff writers, and its editorial standards are not high. In addition, it is purely local; it just serves the Point Loma and Ocean Beach neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. for same reasons provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Bidnessman (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems more WP:SPAMmy than anything else. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The citations in the article were included as legitimate, good-faith additions of independent sources meant to verify the article's content. Thanks. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no significant rewards. Claritas § 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Nom and Student7 Codf1977 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because I have improved considerably on the article since the nomination, backing up content with citations showing she's volunteered on a sustained basis for nationally recognized nonprofits, not just at local level, plus I just found & added two more reliable sources -- both from the San Diego Union-Tribune -- one from 2009 which quotes Mendoza at the top of the article, backs up the article's content with the statement that she & her husband had 1st antique mall in Ocean Beach & refers to OB as an antiques district; and the other, from 1994, added as an external reference about collecting, which quotes Mendoza. Thank you. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 delete. Shimeru 20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Valley Entertainment Monthly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, defunct local alternative newspaper, circulation approx. 1,000. Sources listed are either a) not reliable/verifiable or b) do not mention the subject. Subject failes WP:NNEWSPAPER, the proposed guideline (no current guideline), also fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in WP:USERFY with so significant improvement. Appears to be a vanity piece. Non-encyclopedic. Minor4th (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom claims "no significant" improvement" after userfy. Most of the references and a lot of cleanup work when into it before I put it back on the Main Page. How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- The article was userfied to allow me to add the appropriate sources and references since I still had to dig to find the Flipside and other articles that I didn't have in front of me initially. My mistake was starting the article on the Main Page rather than work on it first on my own page. Another high crime, I know, but please forgive my ignorance. I'm aware of the policy now. In any case, and once again, Minor4th has ignored policy and assumed the worst here. In truth, most of the references on the article were put there after it was userfied. Again, please check your facts before you go making accusations and incorrect remarks based fully on assumption. Any ref that doesn't mention VEM is there for purposes of citing a source for an individual that is mentioned as having been associated with the paper. If the cite wasn't there, it would obviously turn into this after about two seconds:
- Nom claims "no significant" improvement" after userfy. Most of the references and a lot of cleanup work when into it before I put it back on the Main Page. How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
[citation needed] Right? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as I said in the previous discussion, I looked for sources in America's Newspapers through the library and found no mention of this publication. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Turlock is a small town and the newspaper only ran a year. It is highly doubtful that it ran any "breaking news" that weren't covered by the Stockton Record, Modesto Bee or Sacramento Bee. I know because I live in the area and this is the first I've heard of the paper. Discounting that observation, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability. I tried as a WP Cal member. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per above, as well as my rationale from the original AFD. History: When I first nominated the article for deletion, the author left some pleasant corespondence [1], [2]; I especially like "You and your kind will not win". Eventually I concurred with the proposal to userfy, pending the addition of reliable sources to support notability, and see now that the article was re-entered in main space with little or no apparent improvement in sources. Longterm and contentious sense of ownership suggesting conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I stand by my previous comments - nothing worth saving. Seems a short-lived local publication, unencyclopedic and nearly 20 years out of date, non-notable, and still no google hits, except wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not going to vote since I was the principal creator of the piece but I'd just like to say that 16 solid references including national publications does not make this subject non-notable. No internet back then, that's how we got our news, I found the old copies in the garage but didn't realize the crime involved in trying to write an article on a small newspaper that wasn't notable to editors that in many cases weren't even born at the time of publication. I'd advise anyone who isn't biased to actually read the article and explain how the content and people involved, including Stan Lee and many other famous contributors, is not notable.
It should also be pointed out that this article was nommed for a second time due to a conflict with an AfD with this article, Donald G. Martin, which Minor4th took as a means to create a justification for this AfD. Good show, Minor4th, I applaud your military skill.
- Oh, yeah, I almost forgot this...
Majority ≠ right | This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. |
Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Comment - having read Minor4th's comments on his talk page, I concur. Had he not nominated the article, I would have after the article was brought to my attention by an admin during the Don Martin debate. I also find it curious that you have a problem with the refs there after looking at the refs on this article. The article does not meet Wiki standards, pure and simple. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here are my comments on the sources used in this article. Since many of them are not available online, I have referred to their availability in libraries around the word as searched for at WorldCat.
- Valley Entertainment Monthly itself - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
- Listed because the data to be cited for reference purposes was contained in the Valley Entertainment Monthly copies which I used to get the facts straight.
- The Hughson Chronicle - 1 library holding listed in WorldCat (Stanislaus County Free Library, Modesto, California).
- Article appeared in this newspaper announcing the start of the publication.
- Duckduckgo.com - Site appears to be based on mirroring Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.
- VEM is a defunct newspaper and is listed on an independent source. This is a fact and there is an online resource to support it.
- Answers.com - Mirror of Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.
- The paper is mentioned in the article, whether they sourced it from Wiki? Unknown. There is a lot more information there than something they pulled from Wiki, though, so at least only part of the page is based on Wiki, if at all.
- UFO Magazine - Does not mention VEM.
- Backs up a statement about a contributing writer. Doesn't mention VEM but is a reference for the claim made about the individual. Is this not allowed? Sarah told me I need a cite for the Mr. Morbid paragraph, so I assumed I needed to reference each claim. I think I'm right on this, but will defer to more experienced editors.
- Wraith - No library holdings listed in WorldCat for the particular Wraith described here.
- Comic book from 1994. What can I say? I've got one, says VEM on the inside front cover. Should I make copies of these articles and fax them to Wiki? Yes, some of this stuff is esoteric and may have little web presence, but they support the Wikipedia standards by supplying the required refs.
- Vortex Two - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
- This was a local UFO publication that ran an article on VEM in that issue. I would say this one is not a big name publication, just a localized newsletter.
- American Art Directory - Does not mention VEM; in fact, it was published almost 80 years before VEM debuted.
- This one is there to support the contention that the artist referred to in the piece is a "listed" artist as it says in the article. If I said she was a listed artist and didn't put that there, I'd get one of these real quick: [citation needed]
- Penguincomics.net - Incorrectly cited web site. The reference should be to Penguincomicsnet.blogspot.com. However, the blog post at issue does not mention VEM.
- Again, reference for the claims made about an individual contributor.
- Bar-None.com - Does not mention VEM.\
- Supports another claim in the article about Country Dick Montana of the Beat Farmers.
- The New Millennial Star (or The New Mellennial Star) - No library holdings listed in WorldCat under either spelling.
- Another UFO publication, this one a lot larger than Vortex Two. This one is mailed around the world to South America, Europe and the United States. Not surprising the WorldCat wouldn't cover it. How many UFO publications does the WorldCat cover? Also, if it is not in WorldCat, it can't be a reference? I'm confused.
- Flipside (fanzine) - This one does appear to have 5 library holdings listed in WorldCat.
- Huge publication, albeit somewhat underground, that has been available in every major city in the United States since the late 80's. For people who claim the paper was not notable, a major publication like that would not have covered it if it was some little nothing paper as most here would like to suggest.
- Magus News - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
- Gaming publication. Sorry no WorldCat, but VEM mentioned.
- The Sorcerer's Scroll - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
- Same as above. Issue contains article about VEM.
- All responses by Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
There are also five web sites in the "External links" section, but none of them mention VEM. I realize that not everything is on the Internet, and to research some things it is necessary to go to a library and maybe even do an interlibrary loan. The problem is that most of the sources listed here either don't mention VEM or would be very difficult to locate. Other than the Hughson Chronicle and Flipside, I don't know if I would even be able to find any of the more relevant sources here. I'm not going to submit my recommendation yet, though, as the article might change between now and when the AfD closes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any references that do not actually mention VEM are intended to back up statements about the people involved and to that degree, the references back up statements about individuals involved somehow with the paper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- I should also disclose my relationship to this subject. I was friends with Mr. Morbid and I kept a copy of each issue as it came out. When I was cleaning out my garage a few months back, I ran across all the old issues in a box. I thought Wikipedia would be inclusive of even a small newspaper, but I didn't realize that having an article on the site means having to win a popularity contest. As for the article, I'm not going to take it personally even though it clearly is personal. The timing makes it obvious it is punishment for some other crime. The paper, as I've said ad nauseum, was really exciting to a lot of us back then and we didn't have the internet. I know its hard to imagine life without the net, but back then we actually got our news through newspapers and this was the only one like it in the area at the time. Interviews with Stan Lee, Quiet Riot, Mart Nodell and many others, all nationally known celebrities, artists and writers. Yeah, real non-notable. I'd suggest some of you actually read it first, too, before voting because one of your editor friends told you to jump on the bandwagon. I'll also add that I haven't seen Mr. Morbid since 1994 or thereabouts, so I am certainly no proxy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Any references that do not actually mention VEM are intended to back up statements about the people involved and to that degree, the references back up statements about individuals involved somehow with the paper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete. Per above Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For disclosure purposes, I made a few cuts to the article without realing I wasn't signed on. Sarah advised cutting the fluff, so it was basically a bunch of paragraphs cut out of the piece. They are all marked something along the lines of "improvements, per Sarah" and the like. Sorry about the oversight. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
This is an answer to Metro from my Talk page. I thought it would be appropriate as it very clearly sums up in a concise manner this whole affair:
- "Some Questions Exactly how many cites does a subject need anyway? Isn't it something like two? The article has two solid ones. The Flipside article is being ignored like it is nothing. That is a nationally distributed monthly magazine as I've tirelessly pointed out, but you are focused on some small things, which I find ridiculously petty, but I respect your right to your opinion, obviously. The Hughson Chronicle announcement of the first issue is no joke either. I just think the material is not being reviewed properly. How common is it that a small publication like that would nonetheless have interviews and/or contributions from internationally famous rock musicians (Rick Wakeman, Country Dick Montana!, Ian Moore, Quiet Riot, Kevin Dubrow now deceased), the creators or Spider-Man (Stan Lee) and Green Lantern (Mart Nodell), a nationally syndicated psychic, a column by a leading UFO researcher at the time, as well as a particularly gory column specifically about B-grade slasher films? It looks like it will be deleted and I'm not going to get worked up over it, it isn't that important. But it turned out to be one hell of a learning experience and that's a really good thing. With that said however, I have to add that the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot. Just my opinion, don't take it personally."
Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Delete per nom. Source-wise, they're either VEM itself, passing mentions or are for related facts immaterial to the actual newspaper. Sadly, the creator seems to now be on some kind of personal crusade against the world. ninety:one 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess it is coming off that way, but I don't mean for it. Bottom line is I spent a couple weeks trying to get this article together and when there was disagreement on another AfD, this one was mysteriously nominated for deletion by one of the principal editors over at the AfD on Donald G. Martin. It had been left alone, with refs, for weeks with no comment or additional tags. Odd timing and would probably annoy anybody. I am on a war, though, with editors who throw around accusations, then ignore the responses. That's just plain wrong but seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia. Incidentally, there are two solid, nationally recognized refs (Flipside Magazine and The Hughson Chronicle), so I'm not sure what you mean by "passing references" only. That is an assumption and untrue. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Comment -- NN, your behavior when anyone disagrees with you makes it very difficult to work collaboratively with you and does not inspire others to give you helpful pointers. Nevertheless, you mentioned something in one of you earlier comments that struck me -- as far as notability goes, you mentioned that what is unique about this particular newspaper is that it attracted interviews of very important people in the comics industry despite its being small circulation and a free publication. In other words, it's not the big name interviews themselves that are really notable, it's the fact that such a small alternative publication could pull it off. Maybe make that the principle claim of notability and make it more prominent and clearly stated. I don't know if that will stave off deletion because I havent gone back and reviewed your edits or ref improvements since I nommed this. But that is one way I think you could improve this article that might help bring it into wiki compliance. Good night. Minor4th (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though arguably borderline as to notability, I'm satisfied that this publication made a contribution to popular culture. Outside the realm of articles that cause real-world problems (BLP or related matters), this falls for me well within the category of keeping more rather than less content where the content will provides some useful information without harming anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NN has written to Jimbo Wales concerning this and his editing (you can find on Jimbo's talk), and Jimbo has commented that the article "almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia" Claritas § 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably Keep: Jimbo also told us to ignore all rules so long as we are improving Wikipedia. I think content that is non-notable to whomever could be labeled with a category for excluding from projects where it matters, such as printing Wikipedia. I can't see that it does any harm otherwise. Lumenos (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarise and Merge to Turlock, California - I see no reason why a historical newspaper of local interest might not be covered there. Claritas § 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Claritas.Minor4th • talk 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As a WP Cal member, oppose mention in Turlock. The paper is not historical as it did not produce any lasting works except for this AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm no - The two should be linked but it is rather long for that article. wp:IAR would be more of an improvement I think. It becomes a nuisance only if the content is some place like that. Lumenos (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Proposed deletions
for occasional archiving
- Bear Valley Road (Mojave Desert region, California) (via WP:PROD on 10 December 2007) Deleted
- Miss Carlsbad (via WP:PROD on 19 October 2007) Deleted