Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Catholic Messenger

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. Sandstein 10:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Catholic Messenger

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. A few MINOR mentions in newspaper articles. Created by the individual who runs the website, CLEARLY a self-promotional WP:COI. There has already been discussion about this blog on RSN here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_345#Is_BlackCatholicMessenger.com_a_Reliable_Source? ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'm not seeing any major reporting in any reputable sources—most coverage comes from inside the online catholic sphere. The Philadelphia Enquirer source doesn't turn up much, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/keep: It has been said by some editors that BCM is an unreliable source, but as can be seen in the link above, no consensus was reached on that topic and the discussion was never closed or resolved; only a few editors participated, including myself and the creator of this deletion request. The claim that it is a "blog" seems arbitrary, in that light, apparently being stated because the publication is new, small, etc. (The site has many authors, is recognized by several media associations, and has received hundreds of thousands of views in the past year.)

Also, what makes the references to BCM in national news sources "minor"? One commenter above seems to imply that because the sources are Catholic, they are therefore not "major reporting" or "reputable". This is obviously false. Moreover, The Philadelphia Inquirer is literally the paper of record for that region and has cited BCM.

As I mentioned in the Reliable Source discussion, one wonders by what metric such a publication would receive the approbation of certain Wiki editors, since some of the criteria being put forward are hardly met by even the most respected sources available (an editor for the editor, fact-checkers for the fact-checker, etc). At what point does a new news publication, clearly defined and widely seen as such, become a news publication in the eyes of those outside of its sphere (namely, here on Wikipedia)? A certain amount of page views? A certain number of years operating? References and full-on features from outside of its content area?

Obviously most any African-American or Catholic publication would fail any number of these criteria, which are being implied as necessary by certain Wikipedia editors in this case. It seems like a bit of a catch-22. natemup (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The word "unreliable" is a bit too pejorative for me. To be precise, sources from the subject itself are "primary" so do not count for notability. At best there is the one article from the Philadelphia Enquirer which is independent but does not talk that much about the subject. It seems to have only existed for a year, so on the basis of WP:TOOSOON I would also support a merge into Black Catholicism although it is already long, it has a section on publications that does not mention this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W Nowicki (talk • contribs)

@W Nowicki: Wait, so you don't see any in-depth coverage from reliable sources and you're !voting to keep? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of course is how you define "in-depth": Is 43 words in-depth, but 37 words not? That is why it seems not well defined to me. I do not have time to incubate this myself, but if one of the editors of it wants to move back into draft space until it gets enough coverage, that would seem the ideal solution. If the number below of less than a thousand users is true, then would certainly go along with a verdict of not notable enough yet. W Nowicki (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious notability - This is apparently an online newspaper (i.e. website) with just 550 users. I express no view on its reliability or otherwise, but I doubt it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userify May become notable in the near future, but seems to be rather niche, and not really notable yet. Mako001 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is blatantly promotional, and largely sourced to their own reporting. The other sources are trivial mentions, or are mostly about one of the group's principals - Nate Tinner-Williams. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:GNG. No indication it passes any other guide, such as for a website/blog. Ifnord (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (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.