Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Constitutional


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Daily Constitutional

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see the requirements for the notability for this article. Sorry. New England Cop (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What New England Cop probably meant to say was that this article cites exactly one source, and that isn't an independent one. So someone who did nothing to determine notability other than read the article, which is not putting deletion policy into actual practice, might think that no independent sources exist.  However, independent sources reviewing and documenting this magazine such as,  (not the most in-depth of sources, but it does tell us about the three founders), and  turn out to exist if one goes looking for them.
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi I just spent a few hours going through the deletion P&Ps but didn't see where it said I had to look for the sources. Can you help? Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting - do you give people tickets if you're not sure if they have committed an offence? Assessing notability is all about sources - see WP:N. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am well versed in my state's traffic laws and will give out tickets there is an infraction or violation that they have committed. I spent a lot of time going through the deletion P&Ps but I didn't see where it says I had to research for references. I am new to this. Feel like I'm gettin a run around. Not so friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the policy: bullet point #7 at WP:DEL-REASON states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be deleted. Scrolling down the page, under the heading Proposed deletion, it reads: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion." The words "obviously and uncontroversially" suggest that some effort is expected of the proposer to justify the belief that a page doesn't belong. After that, it's all a question of the adequacy of references in terms of number and quality. Ewulp (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is so incredibly bureaucratic and unwelcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked for assistance; I took you seriously. Sorry! Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked for assistance; I took you seriously. Sorry! Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. May meet the threshold. There's also some coverage at vernissage.tv. Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete A couple of brief mentions in small publications does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 13:16, 21 January 2013 (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.