Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KindyNews


 * 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. consensus is clear, not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

KindyNews

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and the paper isn't mentioned in any of the references given. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by page's creator, though that on its owns isn't grounds for deletion, and article's tone is no longer promotional. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi would like to speak about why I think this article should not be deleted.
 * KindyNews is a legitimate publication - just like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times - The only difference being that it is small and only been in existence for a short time,Is that grounds to remove it from WIkipedia? Also, I have added references etc and the article itself has been careful not to be a "advert" but simply a statement of the publication's existence
 * kind regards
 * Karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenjackman2010 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an essay describing what might make a publication notable enough for inclusion at WP:Notability (media). It's not official policy, just a useful essay. Yes, your publication seems perfectly legitimate, but I can't find anything online mentioning showing what might make it notable enough for an encyclopedia article, whereas the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times get cited in countless books and in the daily media of many countries, with a significant impact on society. Scopecreep (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find any decent refs,and none present in article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points - to respond: KindyNews is an fairly new publication and has not been around Long enough to have all the books and articles written about it that the WSJ or NYT has - both of these publications were once new too and I am sure they were also legitimate then too - even when they didn't have all the "buzz" that they enjoy today. We regularly have local Australian politicians and leaders writing in our publication and indeed several sent us letters of support when we launched - would referring to one of these letters or uploading it somewhere on the site be "notable" - it's not on a website =- but a lot of books weren't for hundreds of years before the internet arrived. KindyNews is Australian and you may not be familiar with all the local names and places over there in the US - but there is a whole community here which is. So, following from that, would :"decent refs" also apply to those coming from non-internet sources? Karenjackman2010 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Karen, I just want to respond to your feedback. The thing is, we have well-established guidelines for notability. In addition to Scopecreep's essay link, the more general text can be read here. Although non-internet sources are perfectly fine in itself, the letters you speak of are primary sources: these normally cannot be used to assert notability. I think it is easiest stated this way: Wikipedia does not come up with information by itself, it merely reports what other secondary or tertiary sources have to say about a subject. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources out there that significantly (more than 'a mention') cover KindyNews, it is best to wait until it has grown a bit and attracted enough attention to generate the coverage we need. We definitely do need you help and expertise though, so why not improve on child care related articles in the meantime? Again, thanks for joining and don't let this issue discourage you! Kind regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scopecreep, Yes I see your points and of course I would love to contribute to the existing child care related articles etc. I would also agree that once we grow we will have more coverage in other sources and with other media outlets. I wonder if the template wiki has in place for determining if this entry is valid might make valid entries INVALID though, when they are clearly not - just a thoughtKarenjackman2010 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment Yes, there was a time when the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times were just getting started—and at that time neither of them were notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete My comments are on the article talk page. This article is absolutely not notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2012 (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.