Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronado Eagle and 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 delete and redirect to California Digital Newspaper Collection.  Mini  apolis  21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Coronado Eagle and Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Completely unsourced articles about two community newspapers in a small suburb of a larger city. WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all newspapers that exist -- a newspaper still has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because its own self-published website or an online archive of its issues nominally verifies that it existed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find some reliable sourcing about them, but nothing in the articles right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  17:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  17:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any WP:RS, although I will say it's a bit hard to search for sources about a newspaper (you just end up getting articles from that newspaper). But I'm just not seeing anything to warrant keeping the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with nom. No independent coverage cited nor found. MB 04:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I created the original article and direct the California Digital Newspaper Collection, which worked with the local library to digitize the archive. We will hold an informational session at the local library in October and I will encourage patrons to add to this wikipedia page.--Bkgeig (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion now would not constitute a permanent ban on the newspaper ever having a Wikipedia article; even if it gets deleted now, it can be recreated at a later date if and when somebody can do better than this. Accordingly, we don't keep articles just because they might eventually become upgraded to a keepable standard — we keep articles only if they're already at a keepable standard today. But with no reliable source coverage shown here at all, this isn't. That, again, does not preclude the article from being created again at a later date if your "informational session" can turn up the type of sourcing it takes to attain a keepable standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a URL to show that this newspaper has been digitized at California Digital Newspaper Collection. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to California Digital Newspaper Collection as the subject is mentioned there; Eagle & Journal is part of the collection; here's a sample page: link. I cannot find RS at this time for a stand-alone article, but worth redirecting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , What are the thoughts on a redirect? Even though the target does no provide additional information on the  paper, it puts it in the context  of California Digital Newspaper Collection and provides a link to its website so that these newspapers can be searched. Before I came across these AfDs, I did not know about the project and I think it's pretty cool. I see the papers cited (via the project) quite a bit. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)  too. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Newspapers have a low bar for inclusion/significance, but IMO this low bar is not met with WP:SYNTH from primary sources, those primary sources being evidence of individual newspapers having been archived. So IMO this redirect is not currently WP:Verifiable.  At this point, it appears that CDNC doesn't have an online statement of what newspapers they have archived.  Perhaps Bkgeig can get a page added to the CDNC website to show the scope of their collection.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the source of Eagle & Journal be acceptable for this purpose? Even though it's reporting on itself, it could be considered a secondary source in this case: Coronado Newspaper Project Complete, Local Newspapers Searchable Online.
 * According to the article, newspapers listed by CDNC include: The Coronado Mercury, The Coronado Strand, the Coronado Saturday Night, The Compass, The Coronado Journal, The Coronado Eagle, and the Coronado Eagle and Journal. Here's a more extensive article on the topic, with some details on the papers, including years of publication, etc: Coronado Library Is Driving Force Behind Digitization Of Historic Coronado Newspapers. These citations could be added to the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete and redirect. I like to vote yes for historic newspapers, and being the only paper in an area at the turn of the century would, in my mind, make the paper notable. But this paper is not quite old enough for me to be happy with so little information. I'd likely change my !vote if a little more context were provided: Who was the founder? Who were the first editors and writers? How many columns and pages did it have and how often was it published initially? That sort of information, even if it isn't independent, can help establish the historical notability in my mind. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, important historical paper with a history of nearly 104 years. Also the only newspaper of Coronado Island in San Diego, California that is locally produced. I'm also going to put in some work to improve the article when time permits. This is another one that needs sources. I've already put in 3 now which is three more than the zero it had when it was nominated for deletion. Again, a word tp enthusiastic article creators. I for one appreciate what you do because I love info and I love for other people to access it too. So when putting in a new article, just include a couple of refs if you could. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to do a lot better than that. The sources you added are (1) a signed affidavit by an employee of the paper, (2) the newspaper's own self-published rate card, and (3) a self-published article in the newspaper about the appointment of its own publisher. Those are all primary sources, and cannot support notability — to pass WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG, a source must be fully independent of the topic, and newspapers do not get to metasource themselves into Wikipedia by writing about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur that sources added to the article have not been sufficient. Thus a redirect would be appropriate. Should RS manifest themselves, the article can be restored to a stand-alone page. For now, a mention in California Digital Newspaper Collection is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I know this AfD has been open a long time, but I think it would be ok to relist it again.  The choices remain unclear between delete, delete and redirect, redirect, and keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Bearcat, you should know as commented by Safehaven86, Quote: - I will say it's a bit hard to search for sources about a newspaper (you just end up getting articles from that newspaper). I've just popped those 3 links as a starting point. I'm about building. It appears you're not on the construction team. Karl Twist (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete both. As reluctant as I am to delete articles about very old newspapers, if there's nothing to say about either of them beyond that they carried on business as a newspaper for a long time, it's unclear what purpose the article could serve.  FalconK (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep However unclear the sources, they are clear that the topic exists.  It then becomes clear that this is a topic we want to cover on Wikipedia with the best sources available.  Part of the problem here appears to be getting information from the libraries that have the information we want, into a source that allows our readers to verify the information.  Specifically, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and cannot source itself.  If some consider WP:GNG (as opposed to notability) an issue, then it would be appropriate to merge this topic into a Newspapers of California article.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "It exists" is not enough for keeping, ans "it needs sources" is a reason for deleting, not keeping. Actually it needs substantial third-party coverage per WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing any here.  Sandstein   19:29, 7 October 2016 (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.