Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. I note that this has been twice relisted by the nominator, but WP:RELIST discourages relisting in these circumstances. I cannot see that another week will bring any different arguments to the table. As always, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Indymedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In March, user:Thegroove nominated this article for deletion, see, observing that it "[f]ails our notability and reliable source [requirements], as almost all of the sources provided are self-published, and the ones that aren't don't say anything that indicates notability. Google News turns up nothing except a minor incident involving the seizure of a server." On the face of the article, that editor concluded, the subject organization evidently "has no claim to have done anything significant or noteworthy."

The nomination was well-taken, as I explained in comments supporting it, but consensus was not reached (a decision, good wikiquette obliges me to disclose, that I disputed, see ). The passage of time has only strengthened the case for deletion. Despite a college try by user:jezhotwells, see ), nothing added to the article since March has patched the holes in the article's hull that were discussed in the first nomination; if anything, more bulkheads have given way (one of the few independent sources cited has been flagged as a dead link, see ). I think it's time to reconsider.

Bristol Indymedia is not notable, and should be deleted. WP:ORG instructs that an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The article cites nothing reliable that, individually or in sum, shoulders that burden (indeed, it cites very little except Indymedia articles, the very antithesis of "independent of the subject"). A google search hardly suggests that underinclusive editing is to blame, which takes WP:SOFIXIT off the table as a remedy. See also WP:ATD.

A last-gasp alternative theory of notability argues that the authorities' 2005 seizure of the organization's server saves the article. As I explained in March, however, that dog won't hunt. Even assuming that the seizure itself is notable under WP:EVENT, the nominated article isn't about the seizure -- it's about the organization whose server was seized. WP:ORG is crystal clear on this point: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). That isn't the case here. Bristol Indymedia isn't the "subject" of the Register's coverage of the seizure, for instance, see - the seizure is. Participation or involvement in a notable event does not by itself bootstrap an organization into notability. (Even if it did, premising this article's survival on the notability of the seizure event gives rise to serious problems with WP:UNDUE.)

Finally, to the extent that there is anything salvageable in the article--i.e. notable and backed by reliable sources--the article should still be deleted, and that content merged into Independent Media Center, Bristol Indymedia's parent organization. That article already has a section on the server seizures. There is simply no need for local subsidiary, which is not notable in its own right, to have its own entry. That's why, for example, Scotland Indymedia and Portland Indymedia are redlinks. (But, I realize, see WP:WAX.)

It's high time we dropped the curtain on this article. I propose its deletion - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * N.b. all users who participated in the previous nomination have been notified of the relisting. Ordinarily, I would also notify the article creator and significant contributors, but in this instance, the only significant contributions to the article by a registered user are from user:jezhotwells who has been notified qua a participant in the previous AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been an improvement since the last AFD; one of the references (this page on the World Association for Christian Communication website) has some coverage. Other sources already existed in the article; the BBC reference has Bristol Indymedia as the main subject, although it is not on the main BBC News site and there isn't much content, and there is also the coverage of the server seizure controversy, which is mentioned in the main Indymedia article and was why I suggested a merge/redirect.  Although it may just about meet the guidelines, much of the content doesn't appear to be notable and can be removed, and without secondary coverage, it is unclear whether the selection of incidents in the "Bristol Indymedia Ongoing" section accurately represents the organisation so it should probably be removed.  The rest is either non-notable or similar enough to the main Indymedia article, so in my opinion a redirect, and possibly merge some of the content, would still be the most appropriate decision. snigbrook (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit to being dubious of the "WACC" article. Would a press release from Bristol Indymedia, posted on an independent website, even if stamped with the independent website's imprimatur, satisfy WP:ORG's requirement that sources establishing notability "must be ... independent of the subject"? (See also WP:Independent sources.) Doubtful. And for the following reasons, I think that's what we have here. The overall tone of the "article" posted at WACC seems much like a press release, and unlike every other contemporaneous "article" in WACC's archive, see, this one lacks a byline.
 * Where those points are merely suggestive, what really gives the game away is a telltale locution in paragraph 2. Having noted that the site tries to emphasize local voices, the article/press release anticipates an objection: "[a] critic might say that this would leave us as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but we believe we are far from it." (Emphases added). "Us"? "We"? Something doesn't smell right here: Why would an article written by WACC about Bristol Indymedia refer to its subject in the first person? A source that was genuinely "independent of the subject" would refer to the subject in the third person - "[a] critic might say that this would leave them as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but they believe that they are far from it." Yet this article obstinately (and, unless one rejects a priori the possibility that this article/press release was written by Bristol Indymedia, inexplicably) refers to its subject in the first person.
 * With all this in mind -- the tone, the aberrational absence of a byline, the otherwise inexplicable use of the first person to refer to the subject -- I find it highly unlikely that this article/press release is truly "independent of" Bristol Indymedia, regardless of where and under whose auspices it is posted. It seems to be a press release, or similar subject-generated material. It does not, therefore, at least in my view, substantially bolster the case for notability under WP:ORG - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it may have been copied from although some changes have been made - so it was written by someone associated with Bristol Indymedia (the absence of byline may be because the writer doesn't want to use their real name).  It appears to have been published as an article, not a press release, and it appears to be WACC's decision to publish it (probably they wanted something written from an Indymedia volunteer's perspective), so in some ways it is independent coverage and in others it is not. snigbrook (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good detective work. :) The changes appear to be trivial (the paragraph breaking is a little different, and the WACC version has a parenthetical to describe where Bristol is in the world), with one exception relevant here. WACC's reprint omits the first paragraph from the original, which frankly admits that the text was written--as a blog entry, no less! See WP:SPS--by "an Indymedia volunteer, a reader of the site and a writer on the site" in order to offer readers "a perspective from inside...." Given WP:ORG's requirement of the intellectual independence of material used to establish notability, this discovery seems seems to throw out the WACC source, unless the bare fact of WACC's decision to reprint adds some weight? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard that suggests sources such as this may be acceptable, although the discussion was in 2007 and the situation may have changed since then. The fact that the author is not named in the WACC version (and only uses a pseudonym on the blog) may be a problem.  Whether it's an acceptable source for notability or not, I support a merge/redirect to Indymedia unless more sources are found for significant coverage. snigbrook (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (if there is anything left to merge) to Indymedia. Regretfully. (1) I agree with the outcome of the discussion above: that the WACC source is very borderline for the purposes of establishing notability, if at all. This is probably just an example of what can happen when the same person is active in two similar projects. (2) Another independent source would be the Venue (magazine) article, but that's just as bad, only in a different way. Since this kind of magazine tries to report everything interesting that is going on locally it's not really very suitable for establishing notability. And if you read the article you will see that it discusses Indymedia-like projects in general, followed by a brief history of Indymedia itself, with one small section each for London, Seattle, Washington and Bristol. If even the local events magazine frames Indymedia Bristol in this way, I don't think it can be used to establish independent notability of Indymedia Bristol. (3) The server seizure was notable, but not as widely reported as it should have been. It was just one event, and I think it makes most sense to see it as an attack on Indymedia in general, not specifically on Indymedia Bristol. So it makes most sense to discuss it at Indymedia, as is done already, where it can be put in the wider context including the similar event in the US. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. BIMC is considered notable enough to be cited by author and journalist George Monbiot, Bristol communications company Montage Communications in its PR Blog, the BBC as a local news provider, the City Council as as useful forum for those who wish to recycle goods (citations added to article in new sub-section Media Comment). The local established corporate press does not cite Bristol Indymedia, even though often sourcing stories and copy from this and other open publishing and copyleft publications. Ironic really, as Wikimedia itself is often in the same position. So the only notable local media in Bristol are all owned by Northcliffe and subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate. If the result is to delete, then the artcile should be merged into Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The cite by Monbiot doesn't have any information about Bristol Indymedia, so isn't useful as a source, what is needed is coverage (which can be a problem even with articles about local newspapers that are published by major companies). You mention about the Northcliffe publications, of the four in the Bristol media category two don't adequately assert notability and may be deleted if they are nominated.  The comment that they are "subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate" isn't relevant to this discussion, although if this is something that has been mentioned by reliable sources it may be appropriate to include it in the relevant article(s) - I don't think it's typical of newspaper publishers, as other newspaper companies (such as Johnston Press) don't appear to have any consistent POV.  A merge of the Bristol Indymedia article into Indymedia is what I currently support, although it would effectively be a redirect as most of the information is already there. snigbrook (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Monbiot piece cites a post at Bristol Indymedia ("BI") in a footnote - and to support a non-essential example, at that. It's a trivial mention at best (see WP:ORG ("[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability")), and, even assuming that WP:SPS doesn't apply (Monbiot's site says it was published in the Grauniad, and we can assume that's truthful for present purposes), user:snigbrook is quite right: Monbiot's piece isn't about BI. It is completely irrelevant to the notability analysis.
 * Your claim that Bristol City Council's link to BI supports the latter's notability is, with all due respect, ludicrous. Reviewing the content of the page you ask us to believe supports notability,, the sum total of its coverage of BI is a link to Bristol Indymedia's site, without comment, and as one of five links for recycling in the city. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that that link makes BI "the subject of significant coverage"?
 * The red herrings having been duly swept off the table, what's left? A passing mention in, a blog post, see and cf. WP:SPS ("self-published media, ... [including] blogs ... are largely not acceptable [sources for Wikipedia]"), a regional BBC item that all-but exemplifies the kind of coverage WP:ORG has in mind in excluding "trivial or incidental coverage," see , and a whole lot of self-published material. None of this, individually or collectively, shoulders the burden of demonstrating notability.
 * Your fondness for BI is apparent, but the bare facts that an organization exists and that "there are those who love it," Daniel Webster, argument in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, reprinted in 15 The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster 11 (1903), do not by themselves make it notable within Wikipedia's guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that the blog, does suggest notabilty as the blogger(s) are a PR company in Bristol and thus should be considered knowledgeable about neews media in Bristol. The story shows how Bristol Indymedia has broken news stories that are later picked up by the establishment media. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I would rejoin that that argument suffers from two defects, either of which would be fatal. First, it's a blog - and blogs are expressly given as examples of WP:SPS. That policy isn't absolute, of course, and it offers two exceptions to its rule. Blog-sourced material is acceptable if it is (a) a legitimate newspaper that is publishing in the form of a blog, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," or (b) when the author is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphases deleted). Might the square peg blog source you cite fit into either of those round holes? No.
 * Exception (a) doesn't apply because, as their "about" page confirms, the "PR Bristol" blog is not published by a newspaper, but by a PR company. Its writers are not professional journalists, and the blog is not subject to the editorial control of any newspaper. Nor does exception (b) help. The subject of the article is Bristol Indymedia; it is hard to imagine what is involved in becoming "an established expert on" Bristol Indymedia, and there is no suggestion that "PR Bristol"'s authors have been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the subject of Bristol Indymedia or anything else.
 * So, to get the blog in, you'd have to argue for a new, unenumerated exception to WP:SPS, and/or, as WP:GAME reminds us, explain why the purpose of the policy is thwarted by inapposite wording. (WP:ILIKEIT, the basis of virtually every defense of the article advanced here so far, isn't an exception, either.)
 * Second, even if the blog is an acceptable source, it doesn't help your case. The girl in the blue shirt on the right is very cute, but that won't suffice. What other help does the post offer? It spends two paragraphs talking about BI. And that's appropriate, because BI is not the subject of the article! The subject of the article is the pollenating function of new media. BI is the given example used to make the point. Recall the purpose of the search: per WP:ORG, we're looking for sources that make the subject of our article "the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). What is offered up? A source that may or may not be acceptable under WP:SPS and which in any event provides only indirect and limited coverage. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources seem just sufficient to show the site to be notable. In my opinion all of the well-established IMCs are notable as alternative press. We are normally fairly liberal in interpreting whether or not a news site is notable. I suggest that a less expansive article might be received here better. There is a tendency, which I well understand, to look at a very detailed article for something of perhaps questionably borderline notability, and judge it unfavorably, but that's really irrelevant equivalent to judging that an article should be deleted because of poor writing. DGG (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This says nothing to address the criterion of WP:ORG, or even WP:N for that matter. Can you offer any argument or evidence to support BI's notability more substantial than "[your] opinion [that] all of the well-established IMCs are notable"? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Article is now well-written, footnoted, and demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources, so that satisfies the general notability guideline.  Beyond the general guideline, it is beneficial for WP to have information on media outlets, particularly the more specialized ones, both for our readers wanting to see what's behind the news they read online and for our own internal purposes in determining how to weight sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming for sake of argument that the GNG (i.e. WP:N) is more liberal than WP:ORG, it isn't controlling here, WP:ORG is, and it is not satisfied, as I've explained above. (If the GNG overrode more specific guidelines, having subject-specific guidelines would be nugatory; see my 02:06, 4 February 2009 comment at Articles_for_deletion/Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization_(2nd_nomination) (explaining that WP:N is "a safety net, not an escape hatch. That is, it exists to ensure that every article has an applicable notability guideline, not to override more specific and restrictive notability guidelines that might apply")).
 * It makes no odds, however, whether WP:N or WP:ORG is controlling: this article fails both. Despite your and Jeremy's protestations that the article "demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources," that simply isn't true. As I noted above in surveying what coverage is cited (comment, 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)), the coverage in the cited sources is trivial or incidental. I've already addressed why it fails WP:ORG, but for sake of completeness, let us note that WP:N requires "Significant coverage," i.e. coverage that "is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive," and that "address the subject directly in detail." This article fails to demonstrate that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. A few comments:
 * WP:N is controlling. The other notability guidelines are an either/or.  It would be counterproductive to require articles about well-defined topics, such as movies, to pass a topic notability guideline in addition to N, while an article about a pencil eraser would be held to the lower standard of N.  Besides, a media outlet is much more than just an organization because of its publishing activities; see the WP:NME essay.  ORG was written to provide a notability framework for self-contained organizations such as social clubs and is not a good fit here.
 * Beyond the obvious utility of the article in covering a media outlet and any unanswered questions about the police raid, all that needs to be demonstrated is coverage in more than one independent secondary source. And while the coverage must be non-trivial ( i.e. a listing in the telephone book doesn't count ), it doesn't have to be just shy of exclusive to the article.
 * An article on a police raid on an organization is of course about the organization; so is an article about its founding or criticism of one of its publications. Otherwise would suggest that a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable.
 * At any rate, while many of the references in the article are primary sources from either Bristol Indymedia itself or similar organizations, or are brief mentions in secondary sources about some very specific aspect of the organziation, three of them do provide in-depth coverage.
 * The BBC article on the relaunch, the Register's article on the specifics of the seizure which was widely reported in the media, and the WACC article on the growth of the organization. I also expect there's coverage in Bristol-area newspapers that we haven't visited yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that WP:ORG is inapplicable, or that WP:N overrides it if it is. WP:ORG expressly applies to any "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service." BI can be considered an organization with a product or an organization providing a service, but either way, it doubly fits the bill. On its own terms, it is a subset of a "movement" and a "project," which might even make it triply so if these qualify it as a "team." . And you refute your own position when the linguistic difficulties inherent in denying that this organization is an organization poke embarassingly above the waves. To argue that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization" is to twice concede that BI is an organization, which amply suffices to place it within WP:ORG's control.
 * You don't appear to dispute that if WP:ORG is controlling, this article fails, so I'll set that point aside. And I've already explained above (3:54, 20 June 2009), it actually doesn't matter whether WP:ORG or WP:N controls, since this article fails both: "WP:N requires 'Significant coverage,' i.e. coverage that 'is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive,' and that 'address the subject directly in detail.' This article fails" to carry that burden.
 * I dispute that it is "obvious" that there is any utility of covering this "media" outfit. Please explain the precise utility of having a separate article for a non-notable minor regional subdivision of the Indymedia group that could not be achieved equally (or better, insofar as it would not require stretching WP's guidelines to include it) by a redirect to Indymedia?
 * Lastly, setting aside the utterly nonsensical claim that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization," you appear troubled by the implication that "a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable." That's leading wording, but one sees the point. And on the point itself: So what? That seems commonplace. There is an article about Bono; there is an article about U2 in which Bono performs; there is not an article about Bono's parents. Indeed, WP:SBST expressly warns that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event," and both WP:UNDUE and WP:EVENT, individually and cumulatively, make clear that just because you are involved in something that is notable, that does not justify coverage of you. It may justify coverage of the event. If there was no article about Indymedia more generally, perhaps the server seizure would justify an article about the server seizure. As it is, the event should be incorporated into the Indymedia article - to have entire article about an otherwise non-notable subdivision of the organization based purely on the event creates WP:UNDUE problems to the extent that the article says anything not directly related to the event providing the notability hook. And the appropriate level of coverage of the putatively notable event is already provided in Indymedia, making the deletion of this article is the appropriate response.
 * It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia were it to be lead by the nose into retaining non-notable content by the gossamer WP:ILIKEIT justifications offered in this AFD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Further citations from USA Today, Business Exchange, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, and Venue magazine, a subsidiary of Bristol News and Media added. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is just about enough coverage in this discussion to meet the main notability guideline (which imo supersedes the other guidelines). Davewild (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seriously mean to contend that, , and support notability? Have you even read these links you're citing? What possible theory of WP:N or WP:ORG, or their animating purposes, would recognize this stupidity as a serious argument for notability?! The last one is even more preposterous than the City Council citation: you're going to claim that inclusion in a list of dozens of city links on the "Venue magazine student guide" makes this organization notable?
 * I'm sorely tempted to think that if someone notable followed them on twitter, you would cite that as evidence of their notability, Jeremy. What I cannot understand is why you think this kind of desperation helps rather than hurts your case. That you have to cobble such nonsense together demonstrates the absence of serious notability-establishing sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see 4 keeps and a merge. Why is this thing still open? I'm supposed to read through all this discussion? Yikes. If it needs to be deleted I suggest renomming it in 6 months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Simon Dodd: I am not sure who you are referring to when you mention "Jeremy"? Are you assuming that Jez refers to Jeremy?


 * Merge and redirect to Indymedia. I agree with the nominator that this is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article.  However, it is verifiable that Bristol Indymedia exists and does exactly what it says on the tin, so WP:PRESERVE should apply. In such cases, I'm persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning in User:Uncle G/On notability, and would refer you to that essay for very detailed arguments in support of this approach.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:26, 24 June 2009 (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.