Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenwood Herald


 * 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 per failure to meet WP:N. Shereth 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Glenwood Herald

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails N as it is a small paper and their are no sources to prove this paper is even real. Irunongames •  play  19:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason that this can't simply be mentioned in the article about Glenwood, Arkansas or Pike County, Arkansas. Media is an important part of any community, but not every newspaper is independently notable.  Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentSorry, I thought this was to supply INFORMATION. I am the editor, so I assure you it is a REAL newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilderfox  (talk • contribs)  19:49, 15 July 2009
 * Well, as you know ANYONE can edit wikipedia. You have to provide resources also that paper might not meet notability standards. Irunongames  •  play  19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I realize that it is a real newspaper and that it's important within Glenwood and in Pike County. The information deserves to be kept somewhere, but (for the time being anyway) newspapers are not automatically entitled to their own article; radio stations and high schools get a pass.  Frankly, I'd be in favor of a policy change in favor of inherent notability for a local paper that is primarily news coverage -- in other words, no "Penny Shopper" or "Bargain Banner" or "Car Trader".  Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've flagged this one for rescue; a bit of Googling (esp books) convinces me that it is a real paper, and I think that RS could be found to establish N; it is, however, difficult to source because googling will show citations and entries by the paper, rather than about it - hence I haven't found them and fixed it myself at this point. I agree with JC that we may need to reconsider policy on this. If N cannot be established, then I suggest merge to Glenwood, Arkansas.  Chzz  ►  16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Is there any claim to significance or importance? Most local shopping weekly newspapers have a much higher circulation.  Does it pass WP:NOTE? Drawn Some (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there are any independent, reliable sources that discuss this newspaper in detail, as the GNG requires, that would be one thing, but this looks like just another small town weekly of which no one's heard beyond the town line.   Ravenswing  23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep yeah all what everyone else said... (all valid) but it's been in consistent circulation for over seventy years. Small town, small paper-right.  Let's do some research on this one and see what we can find...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I placed a notice on the Journalism Project Talk Page asking for input to either improve the article or provide insight on deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as I can tell, longevity forms no part of the GNG or any other notability criteria; by that standard, my 94 year old grandfather is prima facie notable and deserves a Wikipedia article. Do you have any valid policy grounds upon which to advocate keeping this article?    Ravenswing  18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response fair points and questions. Here's some essays on the topic--the first one, WP:OLDAGE seems to support your point.  Likewise, Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability can bring some other topics to light, specifically the section on "specialist topics" which covers that notability could exist on topics that are not widely-known.  But where I'll likely end up is Notability is not temporary.  While the paper might not have significance on a global scale today, it appears to have been unique in its ocverage of the logging industry during its heyday.  Further, where it's age comes back in, at least for me, is that it has been continuously operating for that period of time.  Not a lot of newspapers--big or small--can make that claim.  Like the "oldage" section says, 100 years old isn't so much for a turtle, but 70 years is a long time for a newspaper to continuously operate in a small town.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, so what? Longevity still forms no part of notability guidelines or the GNG, or else (for instance) the Old Colony Memorial, Plymouth's weekly that's been in continuous publication for nearly 190 years, would be a slamdunk for an article.  "I think it's important" is the very syndrome for which we have notability guidelines and criteria.  Beyond that, upon what do you gauge that this small paper was uniquely a major player in logging coverage?  Above and beyond any small-town weeklies in Maine, say?  Minnesota?  Oregon?  British Columbia?  Do you have any reliable sources making that assertion ... or is that just your personal opinion?    Ravenswing  05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up Comment: "While the paper might not have significance on a global scale today, it appears to have been unique in its ocverage of the logging industry during its heyday." Well, I just followed that one up, and I see the source added to the article.  It's from Google Books, and shows two footnotes citing a local lumber mill fire, and a local lumber mill closing, in the Glenwood Herald.  And you conflate that into a claim that this paper was "unique in its coverage of the logging industry" and imply that it may have had global significance then? Paul, with all due respect, don't bullshit us.  I can't imagine you're comfortable with the concept that we need to backcheck each and every fact and source you toss out in an AfD for fear of wildly exaggerated claims.    Ravenswing  05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever whenever someone says "with all due respect" and then acts very disrepsectful, I tend to ignore anything they say from that point on. For others, I will address your comment: I've been doing a little research and stated that it "appears to have been unique" ... not that it "definitely is unique" -- notice the difference?  Anyway, I'm done participating in this discussion.  Let the chips fall where they may.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not one of those who believes that WP:AGF is a suicide pact forbidding us from calling attention to egregious behavior. To make such a statement without a shred of evidence remotely backing it up - there "appears" to be nothing of the sort as you describe, and if your normally-skilled research methods have dug anything more up, they've not made it into the article - there are only three explanations that come to mind: ignorance, incompetance or malfeasance in pursuit of an agenda.  Whichever it is, it's deeply disrespectful of the deletion process and serves Wikipedia poorly.    Ravenswing  04:15, 29 July 2009 (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.