Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuji Flyer


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuji Flyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. Reason for proposed deletion: why would a company newspaper, even if that company is a large US Air Force base, be a notable subject? Every major company (school, ...) has an internal newspaper or magazine, but most of them don't have nor warrant articles here. Please indicate why this would be an exception to that rule. The prod was removed because the newspaper had good quality and content, but this is not, under Wikipedia rules, a reason to have an article on a subject. Significant attention in reliable, independent (i.e. not government or military related) sources is what is needed here. Fram (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's this article in Stars and Stripes. Per the Stars and Stripes "about us" page here (at the end of the first section), it "...is a service of the Defense Media Activity; the views and opinions expressed do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the military services or the Defense Media Activity." Stars and Stripes appears likely to be funded by, but editorially independent of Defense Media Activity, which is a department within the U.S. Department of Defense. Per additional information about Stars and Stripes on their "about us" page below that which is quoted above, it states "Stars and Stripes is editorially independent of interference from outside its own editorial chain-of-command." (et al.) This qualifies this source as an independent, reliable source.


 * An interesting sidenote is that an amusement park of the same name exists at the Wet 'n Wild amusement park in Orlando, Florida, per . NorthAmerica1000 13:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Independent" doesn't only men "editorially independent", also independent qua interests, funding, ... As you say, it is "a service of the Defense Media Activity", ruling it out as an independent source (so not usable for notability, it is still usable otherwise). It is not a source which has no connection to the Army but still considers the Fuji Flyer notable enough to warrant significant attention, which is wat we are looking for. Fram (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of reliable source coverage and discussion in multiple different references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Such as...? Fram (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - This is an important piece to keep around, good stuff. I realize that's no argument at AfD, but my interest in saving this is certainly piqued. Speaking in general, not this article, Wikipedia is all about sources. Therefore, articles about those sources — be they book publishers or newspapers or radio stations or television networks or magazines — should be considered component building blocks of the site. There is already a Stars and Stripes article showing in the footnotes counting as one source towards GNG. Time to dig for more. I'll be back... Carrite (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any success in finding further sources for this article? Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep publications such as this one should at least have a stub article for reference value. Even without that, I believe it passes WP:NMEDIA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NMEDIA is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline. The article subject doesn't pass WP:N. Not everything that can conceivably be used as a reference warrants an article, e.g. many local history publications and the like. Why should this one be an exception? Fram (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be an exception, I think it should be the standard. I aggree with the essay in general and there is no reason not to use it as a source.  WP:ONLYESSAY addresses this (which is, of course, an essay).  I'll grant that they don't have the strength of policy or even guideline, but they are worth consideration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing any reason to think that this internal newsletter is notable. These kinds of publications rarely receive any coverage in independent sources, and no sources have been offered in the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 16 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.