Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus Free Press


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Columbus Free Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable alternative press, lacks the reliable sources necessary to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The CFP is a long standing publication the is cataloged on microfilm at the Ohio Historical Society. If all these sources are willing to note the publication, why is it not noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-lived alternative paper, covered in reliable sources and cited as an authority by others.  See e.g.   Passes WP:NMEDIA #2, #4, and #5.  -Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of what you've linked, it appears the only one that's of value that's independent and about the subject is the WOSU piece, which is a local NPR station. DailyKos is not a reliable source, the Columbus Dispatch references are nearly all confined to user comments and not reporting.  Is that enough for notability?  Enough to build an article from? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Actually the CFP is a venerable publication of considerable impact. Newspaper titles as topics are often hard to source but, as Arxiloxos has ably shown, it can be done. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would request you look at those a little closer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Look a little closer. Note that there is a single user that holds this opinion. This user Thargor Orlando, has previously proposed deletion of the CFP's editor in chief Bob Fitrakis . He also has successfully removed OpEdNews which is a non-profit news organization that the CFP serves as the fiscal agent for. The person proposing this has a clear political agenda, as is evidenced by which articles they propose or nominate for deletion. The person proposing this has contributed more than a few WikiPedia articles, but their area of expertise seems to be teleplays airing on the CBS network in the late 1960s, not alternative publications.
 * Keep The CFP's investigative journalism is often cited as a source by mainstream publications like Forbes and Huffington Post  the author of the latter article is a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. Salon has also cited the Free Press as a source . Those are a few that are not behind paywalls.

The notability guidelines suggest one out of five notability criteria should be met. The CFP meets all five criteria. GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding A Few additional Citations here just to underscore the point. The CFP's website, which contains web versions of its articles is cited in over 500 books according to a quick google search Searching Google Books with a for Columbus Free Press yields more than 600 hits, some not solid, some duplicates of the first search, but not all hits fall into either category  It seems like Michael Parenti has no problem citing the CFP as a source. He is joined by Chris Hedges, amongst others. The Congress of the United States has cited Free Press articles in official Oversight Hearing proceedings []. Maybe Congress is too left wing to be considered a source by the detractor.  Perhaps we should go with Vincent Bugliosi, the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson and cited the CFP in this book  . So I'm trying to understand how the CFP is not notable when so many notable authors have taken copius notes. GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs)  — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding Awards. The CFP has been given awards multiple times by Project Censored, which is run by Sonoma State University. A link to one of those can be found here.
 * Summing Up for now: The Wikipedia Notability guidelines for newspapers are listed here [] Let's go through them. #1 Award winning. Check, #2 "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" Check. #3 Considered a reliable source. see my previous posts. Check. #4 "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" see above. Check. #5 "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" Again, see above, Again, Check.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable newspaper. Northern   Antarctica   ₵  22:36, 10 April 2014 (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.