Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacksonville Observer


 * 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. Secret account 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville Observer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Challenged PROD. Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable third-party sources for this publication to establish its notability. I've found nothing but passing mentions from Jacksonville's other major papers, the Florida Times-Union, the Financial News and Daily Record, and the Jacksonville Business Journal; from local alt weekly Folio Weekly; or the local news channels Additionally, as the site appears not to be updated regularly anymore, it seems unlikely that new sources will appear in the future. Cúchullain t/ c 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 09:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:NMEDIA reminds us that "the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition'".  This alternative right-leaning media outlet included a print version for a while, it was referenced in other publications, and occasionally it was credited with a scoop, so I would be inclined to find a reason to keep this article if I could.  Unfortunately I've not found anything substantive other than a May 2011 post by the publisher, Austin Cassidy, announcing the suspension of the print version and a shift to all-local content--informative and reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF but obviously not relevant to notability.   I also note a bio on a different blog website identifying Austin Cassidy as the "former publisher" of the Observer, which would seem consistent with its now-inactive status. If anyone comes up with better information at the last minute about this venture, I'd still be open to supporting the article's retention, but otherwise I suppose deletion is inevitable.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more or less my feeling as well. I'm fairly well attuned to sources for Jacksonville subjects and I haven't been able to turn up any substantive independent reliable sources. I'd be quite happy if someone turns up something I missed, but barring that I don't see another option besides deletion.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Another web-paper that seems to get little attention (and is currently frozen in time), and claimed radio show both does not no longer air on WBOB, nor was it a show controlled by the station itself; it was brokered programming where the owner of the publication had to pay to get on the radio, which wounds that notability straight-off.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source is the website itself and we are not being honest with our readers that the only source has conflict of interest per Third-party sources. It should be deleted per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 03:33, 4 April 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.