Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charleston City Paper


 * 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 and redirect to List of newspapers in South Carolina. redirect looks sensible Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Charleston City Paper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a small strictly local weekly paper that fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Sole cited source is self published. A Google did not yield anything that rings the N Bell. Article has been tagged for improvement for seven years. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this passes WP:NMEDIA as a significant paper in its market, and cited by other reliable sources.  We have many articles about alternative weeklies and I think this is a positive for the encyclopedia, for the reasons discussed at WP:NMEDIA.  Some examples that suggest notability to me include  --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Let's look at each of these sources in order...


 * [1] A trivial mention of the CCP in reference to a lawsuit. [2] Another trivial reference to to the CCP again in reference to a lawsuit. [3] The CCP mentioned in two paragraphs of a story about a bunch of papers declining paid political advertising. Basically an "and they were there too" reference. [4] A report about a state politician who falsified his credentials with credit given to the CCP for breaking the story. This source is one that might count towards establishing notability. [5] A more detailed story about the lawsuit against the CCP [6] A two paragraph - five sentence blurb in a story about a far right neo-Confederate noting that he once worked for the CCP and asked to have some of his writings removed from its website. [7] A reference consisting of a single run on sentence (embarrassing for the NY Times) in an article listing stories being followed in 21 different publications. In summary we have one reference that might count towards establishing notability, several references, mostly trivial, to various legal issues the paper has had, a passing mention that the CCP used to employ a far right nut job, and a single sentence in the New York Times. With respect to the various references to lawsuits I will simply note that newspapers and lawyers go together like presidents and Hail to the Chief. File the references to legal issues under run of the mill. Conceding the one reference (#4) is solid, you may otherwise color me unimpressed. If this is enough to establish notability there is likely not a paper in the country that would not be notable.  I do not believe this meets the in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources required by GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, coverage but not adding up to WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of newspapers in South Carolina. North America1000 10:16, 14 April 2015 (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.