Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarasota News Leader: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:57, 1 September 2012

Sarasota News Leader

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod/prod2. Prod reasoning still applies: New online publication with no clear notability other than someone sending out a prank issue. Currently a topic of drama and threats from the publisher at ANI (see talk page). Basically: fails WP:GNG. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I deleted the prank issue material as non-noteworthy and coatracky.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by BMK (in my view, it doesn't pass the smell test), but I won't revert it during the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You could well be right, I just didn't think it was "smelly" enough to delete. I'm not taking any stance on whether the article should be deleted or not, it didn't seem to me to be prod material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smell is in the nostril of the besniffer. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can assure everyone now that there are no threats from anyone. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coatrack or not, the subject lacks general notability. At best this is WP:ONEEVENT which is still not good enough either. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News search turns up zip. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The publication has been in place for months, it is not a matter of one edition being sent out as a prank. Initially they issued news and opinion as it happened, and now have switched to a weekly format. I made the stub and initial entries to the article as well as creating the image. I have no connection to the publication. I consider the publication as notable because of its high quality and its rapid acceptance in its market. The staff is composed of many established writers followed regularly by readers in the region and its output is being quoted in other publications. I also created the image. Without a rush to action, I think the article should be allowed to remain. Regarding the issue of "hoax" vs "spoof" -- I believe that one copy sent to one person as a joke is not a hoax. It was a parody of the front page of their new format. It was described as a hoax in another publication that I read as sensational, so I described it in terms that seemed more rational to me. The fact that an article published in a regional paper publication about it, furthers justification for notability. The market served by this publication often is dependent upon these minor publications because the major paper has been accused repeatedly of failing to represent many concerns of its readers. That reinforces even further my feeling of its notability. Let's see how the discussion enfolds. Needless tot say I shall vote to keep and would be glad to edit further if there are areas of concern._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, do you mean you uploaded the (initial but now deleted) image? You don't really mean you created it, do you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taking a screenshot could be seen as creating an image, which is then still a derivative work. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a screenshot, yes, considering it fair use. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the publication as notable because of its high quality and its rapid acceptance in its market. - Are there reliable sources to verify that? (Note: the publication's own sources and statements cannot establish notability.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a wordpress blog that has been online for 2 months. If standard are going to be dropped to 2 month old blogs where does it end? Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing WP:TOOSOON PeterWesco (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you, Mr. My-first-edit-was-to-send-an-article-to-AFD?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the smell of WP:SOCK is strong in this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an accusation to make then please put it through the official channels... I would welcome the scrutiny if hopes of a nice apology I can polish monthly. Publicly suggesting a user is SockPuppet would fall under Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless PeterWesco (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry if we're wrong, but Wikipedia:History strongly suggests a newbie who goes straight to AfD and knows all the WP: links isn't a newbie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am going to have a trophy, a page of my own, and my name in lights then :) It should be a testament to the ease of use of Wikipedia and the documentation available. Although the AfD did take me an hour or so to get right, but I have the hang of it now. As I stated originally, research me, I will even fax you all of my details... in hopes that my new Wikipedia page will start with, "I thought he was a SockPuppet" PeterWesco (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. It is accepted as a news site to which subscriptions are taken as well. The editors and reporters on its staff are professions from established publications in the market for many years and the publication is taking the place of one of them, as it ceases to fill the role it had for years since it was acquired by an out of state chain that is using the old publication as a coupon distribution rag.

~~Keep~~. It is a sound and professional publication with established editors and reporters who have served the market for many years. Their coverage of the communities in the market matches or exceeds paper publications in that market. Daily publications since its premier add up to a significant body of work to qualify it as notable. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to !vote once. As you have !voted keep above I've struck the bolding here to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry... considered that a comment with discussion of my intent to vote later. Are you sure my vote will not be overlooked? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The bold 'keep' made it a !vote. No worries, it'll be counted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Because WP:ILIKEIT. And because there is one (actually 1.2 if you count the Q & A with the dude separately; they're on separate pages of the print edition) reliable source that discusses it. In some cases this is enough to meet the GNG, and I think this is one of them. And I like it.Yes, I know that WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid. I habitually seek out things that are to be avoided.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~'Seeking out things that are to be avoided' could be argued as WP:POINTy.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, that part was a joke; that's why I made it small. I'm serious about this comment, but I'm making it small because it's of little consequence. My keep was serious enough.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, sorry. The approaching hurricane has amputated my sense of humor, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think, of course, nothing of it. Good luck with the hurricane!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: I am neutral on the keep/divide of this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we "allowed" to be neutral nominators? Sounds like you're hedging your bets. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I considered it pretty much a procedural nomination, since the PROD was removed but everybody was still saying it needed to be prodded or AfD'd. So I grasped the nettle when the prod was removed. That said, it's also fence-sitting as the sources found might meet the GNG, but I want to see more before "changing" to keep! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral nominations for the sake of procedure are appropriate when they're helpful. In this case, the question of deletion got a bit of discussion at WP:ANI, so the removal of the prod meant that this really needed to be brought to AFD instead of being left alone. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod, and might well have taken it to AfD myself (procedurally), if I didn't find setting up an AfD to be quite laborious. The removal wasn't because I thought the article was obviously keepable, but because I thought its degree of unkeepability (?) went beyond PRODding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should try Twinkle and avoid having to follow the Wikipedia-tedious instructions (I used to hate them).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The "spoof" section needs to be removed since it concerns a very ephemeral incident with no encyclopedic significance (until independent WP:SECONDARY sources say otherwise). The rest of the article describes a "news and commentary source" that is available for free on a website or by email—there are thousands of such "news" letters, and no reason to believe this one is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our only real objections to the page were inaccuracies about the first publish date (April 13th), the actual date of weekly publication (June 15th) and the spoof story, which is not news - as observed - of encyclopedic significance. But our publication is not intended to be one of thousands of news letters. It always was planned to be a published, standalone publication "printed" to virtual platforms (iPads, iPhones, Kindles, Nooks, etc. and a PDF-based online reader), with content available only to subscribers (although subscriptions will be free). Our apps for iPad and iPhone will be available in the Apple App Store within two weeks, and we expect to publish our first standalone edition either on September 7th or 14th (depending on when the app is available for download). Our virtual publisher is Tecnavia, which publishes most of the iPad/virtual editions of major newspapers in the USA. The blog version was simply an ad hoc transitional medium whilst the official publication was created, and will be phased out as a place to publish news within 30 days of publishing the standalone edition. We will be one of the few such publications in the United States, publishing traditionally laid-out content only to a virtual medium, rather than on a desiccated emulsion of ground-up tree parts. Since Newsweek's owner, Barry Diller, has said Newsweek is going to virtual-only publication within months, and the New York Times predicts virtual-only publication within 2-3 years, we do not believe we will be the last. Our thanks to all for their input.Afahmasp (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear, Afahmasp states he is the president and co-founder of the Sarasota News Leader ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Without the spoof story, now removed from the article, I don't actually like it any more and will change to delete if the material actually can't be kept for some policy-based reason. I left a note about this on the article's talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support reinstating the copy on the spoof also. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that alf supports reinstatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do support reinstating hoax but not interview, I just thought that the article talk page was a more appropriate place to discuss it. Without the hoax material, this is a clear delete, since that's the only mention of the website in a reliable source and if we're forbidden from mentioning it for some policy-based reason, there are no usable sources for the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are policy reasons for not including material. However, many times there are other legitimate reasons for not including material such as guidelines and WP:CONSENSUS. Even assuming the hoax material were reinserted, why would one item be sufficient to make the article notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that usually one item is not sufficient, but in this case, because I like the hoax so much (and I do know about WP:ILIKEIT), I thought I'd just argue that one source was enough, as I explained in my keep upstairs there. In reality, I fully expect this to be deleted. That will make me sad. I will deal with it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're very entertaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I also left a comment on the article's talk page, wherein I questioned the veracity of the "interview" (in which I was the interviewee).Afahmasp (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that if this article is kept, there will be constant interference in the maintenance of the article by editors with conflicts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but that can be dealt with through ordinary editing. It happens all the time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it happens "all the time" is an overstatement. It happens. I have no idea how frequently. Sometimes when an article has borderline notability - and whether that's true is up to the closing admin after this discusssion is complete - such problems may tip the balance in favor of deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is nothing to be gained from protracting the issue by the interviewer and it will be left alone. Ordinary editing should suffice. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afahmasp is doing as I asked and is using the talk page and not editing the article, which is what we ask COI editors to do. I don't see a problem there. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There being no discussion following for some time, I have been bold, reinstating the copy about the spoof e-mail since some of the voters express their desires to retain it and the details about the founding staff. I think some of it explains the reason the publication was founded, and therefore, is relevant to its history._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I was not aware that it was such a problem, but why eliminate all of the other copy about why they founded the publication?_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand now about the details of the interview being challenged. Are you aware, however, that an article about the spoof e-mail was published on the front page of the paper that published the interview? Sorry, I had not posted any of the copy related to the interview when it was introduced to the article, I simply was reinstating what had been deleted. Noting the spoof and the publication of the "news" article about the spoof would merely relating historical facts. Perhaps discussion of reinstating some should be discussed further. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of reinstating sections that were printed in a legitimate newspaper notwithstanding (and the veracity of which are questioned), I would like to go on record as opposing any entry that purports to know "the reason the publication was founded." There are only two people privy to those reasons, and neither of us has revealed those reasons to any publication that can serve as a legitimate source. However, there will be information published in at least one respectable publication in the coming weeks that will shed more light on the publication, its owners, and the reasons why we founded it. If this article has not been deleted by then, I will ensure reliable editors provide that information, properly cited.Afahmasp (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 :No, sorry, I was not aware that it was such a problem, but why eliminate all of the other copy about why they founded the publication?_ _ _ _ [[User:83d40m|83d40m]] ([[User talk:83d40m|talk]]) 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 :I do understand now about the details of the interview being challenged. Are you aware, however, that an article about the spoof e-mail was published on the front page of the paper that published the interview? Sorry, I had not posted any of the copy related to the interview when it was introduced to the article, I simply was reinstating what had been deleted. Noting the spoof and the publication of the "news" article about the spoof would merely relating historical facts. Perhaps discussion of reinstating some should be discussed further. _ _ _ _ [[User:83d40m|83d40m]] ([[User talk:83d40m|talk]]) 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
+::The merits of reinstating sections that were printed in a legitimate newspaper notwithstanding (and the veracity of which are questioned), I would like to go on record as opposing any entry that purports to know "the reason the publication was founded." There are only two people privy to those reasons, and neither of us has revealed those reasons to any publication that can serve as a legitimate source. However, there will be information published in at least one respectable publication in the coming weeks that will shed more light on the publication, its owners, and the reasons why we founded it. If this article has not been deleted by then, I will ensure reliable editors provide that information, properly cited.[[User:Afahmasp|Afahmasp]] ([[User talk:Afahmasp|talk]]) 04:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)