Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtland Journal

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtland Journal

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

Tiny newspaper (self-reported circulation: 548) based in a tiny town. Sources are two listings in business directories and 2 trivial in-passing mentions. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes the circulation is small, but that's just an arbitrary number. It has over a 110 years of publication history and many of those are now archived online by other services. This paper is at present used as a source in four articles on Wikipedia: Trailways Transportation System, Brown Mackie College, Fort Lookout (Kansas), and Elizabeth A. Johnson. With over 100 years of publication and many of that now online, it is very likely that over time that number will grow (it shouldn't shrink) so there is reference value in holding this page. Couple with that the Kansas State Historical Society has mentioned that the paper printed multiple historically significant articles and its appearance in Google Books shows that it will continue to serve as reference value. Just because it's small doesn't make it un-important.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "important" doesn't figure among criteria for notability. And not all WP:RS are notable themselves either (although before accepting a tiny newspaper like this as an RS, I would want to see some evidence of strict editorial oversight). In any case, being used as a source on WP does not contribute to notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Important" speaks to WP:IMPACT, which can be a measure of notability. As for the "strict editorial oversight" the paper is a member of the Kansas Press Association which ought to serve that point. But beyond that, we've got more than enough to surpass the general notability guideline. The only thing that's left is that it has small circulation, but that's merely an arbitrary quantity and it wouldn't overturn GNG anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining exactly how this passes GNG?? --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." One might make an argument that the coverage isn't "significant enough" but simply put the sources provided address "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Plain and simple.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read over the word "significant"? How do listings in two directories and two in-passing mentions constitute "significant coverage"?? --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not read over the word "significant" and I even quoted the definition of that as provided by GNG. Because the information in the article is all derived from the sources without any original research, it meets the standard of "significance" as set by GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiar interpretation ot the meaning of "significance", basically you seem to argue that if something is verifiable, then it is notable. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't write WP:GNG. I'm just quoting what is written there. I didn't make the argument, the editors at WP:GNG made the argument and I'm showing how it applies here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 100+ year old newspaper cited by others, at least marginally passes WP:NMEDIA #2 ("served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history"), and in any event I think the encyclopedia is better with information like this than without it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the last part of your reasoning, could you perhaps expand on why you think that this newspaper "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history"? Just having a long history does not equate "significant". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think "because the Kansas State Historical Society says so" would do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps (I don't know how notable that society itself is), but I didn't see them say this. If they had, we'd have at least one good source here, instead of directory listings and in-passing mentions... You linked to one source from that society and one really has to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to find any mention of this newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The paper also published multiple articles of historical value according to the Kansas State Historical Society." source. It's in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice coverage in sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I appear to be badgering, but I'm getting a bit exasperated by these references to "nice coverage". What coverage? The in-passing mentions? The directory listings? Where does anyone say that they have published articles of "historical value"? (All the society did was give a list of sources where info of possible interest might be found and that list seems to be completely uncritical, so I expect that any historian would only use those sources as clues that need further confirmation or as primary source testimonies). --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas State Historical Society (now called Kansas Historical Society) did answer that question. I argue that they are a reliable source and can provide valuable information on what is and is not notable about history in the state of Kansas. These questions are asked and answered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then that I am dumb and dense. I don't see them answering any of the questions posed above at all. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to take this seriously, please cease participation in AFDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot back up your claim, that perhaps applies to yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up claim Step 1: Click on the link for the source. Step 2: Read. Step 3: observe Articles of historical note in recent issues of the Courtland journal included: "Eight months in Western Kansas in 1907", August 25, 1960; "The Glasgow Family Prominent in Early History," September 1; "Sorghum Mill-an Early Industry in Courtland Township,' September 8; "Fort Nonsense," a building erected by the Excelsior colony in north central Kansas for protection from the Indians, September 15; and "Courtland School reaches 72nd Anniversary," by Nina Engwall and Anona Blackburn, September 22. Step 5: realize that is 5 stories deemed of historical value in less than a month's time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have posted notices on the talk pages of the Journalism and Academic Journals wikiprojects to try to get some more views here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with that. It has already been listed in deletion sorting, which is standard practice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A key piece of information that is missing is whether this paper is or once was the newspaper of record in that community. A general-circulation small-town paper that has never been a "newspaper of record" is less likely to be able to meet WP:N than one that is or has been. When it comes to past or present small-town general-circulation newspapers of record, I'm willing to be a bit more willing to say "okay, maybe references that support WP:N exist that we haven't found yet" than I am with one that has never has been a newspaper of record. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable question, I suppose. Although not being the newspaper of record for the county wouldn't preclude the paper from achieving notability. The Belleville Telescope has been published for much longer, is also in Republic County and is likely the newspaper of record for the county. With it being the only newspaper in the community of Courtland, Kansas it likely is the official newspaper of record there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2014 (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.