Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts News


 * 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 MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts News

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only reliable sources are about the publisher J. Edward Pawlick not this paper. In fact I didn't find any solid sources and it looks like it was a specialty paper promoting certain conservative views. What remains is a soapbox (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to rail against those darn homosexuals and the dangerously liberal New York Times (because the are not staunch opponents of gay marriage). Seriously though the paper's name sounds official but the rest is shaky at best to promote a point of view against gay marriage. Nothing to suggest this paper is notable. Gamer$unshine (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The tone of this notability challenge (..."What remains is a soapbox (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) to rail against those darn homosexuals and the dangerously liberal New York Times...") smacks of being POV-driven. I'm inclined not to lose the information contained in this article over technical matters of inadequate sourcing. Flag for sources, keep, fix. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my tone came off poorly, the point I was sarcastically trying to convey is that this newspaper itself is not notable, the publisher might have been (he died in 2007 I believe). When I looked for sources I found nothing which is a pretty bad sign. If you have some non-primary sources let's see what they say. This has been flagged for sources already and my point is if it can't be reliably sourced then it shouldn't be here. In contrast I had no problems finding plenty of coverage for The Boston Globe, so even if they had not won so many awards there is still lots of coverage. This paper seems to have little or none. G$ Gamer$unshine (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sources--a couple are cited in the article and there are more (e.g.), and even if they are also about the publisher, they do give enough information about this paper to support this article. I gather that this AfD is an outgrowth of the debate about "Fistgate", but even if that article should be deleted (and perhaps it should be) that doesn't mean this article should go too. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding those but they confirm that Pawlik himself is notable but his pamphlet was not. two of the three are very minimal mentions and none of them support any claim of notability for Massachusettes News. G-money 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to an as-yet-non-existent J. Edward Pawlick article. He seems to be the more notable topic here. Pburka (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a Pawlick article being created, I am concerned about merging unsourced content that sourcing likely does not exist for. Also we are not responsible for creating some new article so would Delete and allow a Pawlick to be created more accurate? G-money 10:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can put together a decent stub for the man. Pburka (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Arxiloxos especially makes a solid case, with the sources he provides, for the notability of Pawlick. Pawlick is not the subject of this AfD, however.  I'm genuinely flabbergasted, for instance, at the assertion that you can handwave so-called "technical matters of inadequate sourcing" in order to save the "information" - for one thing, if the "information" is not verifiable through a reliable, independent, neutral source, what good is it?  For another, WP:V is the irreductible, fundamental core content policy of this encyclopedia, and can under no circumstance be handwaved.  For a third, this article has been flagged for sources ... for fourteen months now.  It has remained unimproved in all that time, and barring multiple reliable sources which describe the subject - not its publisher, but the subject - in "significant detail," it cannot remain.   Ravenswing  16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge and redirect to Pawlick article.  Ravenswing  09:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Enthusiastic merge and redirect - (disclosure note: I originally declined the speedy delete nom that led to this AfD). Kudos to Pburka for not just suggesting a way of preserving the pertinent info from the nomitated article, but actually following through in such short order. Any relevant info from the Massachusetts News article can be merged in, leaving a redirect. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unenthusiastic merge and redirect Compare Fistgate's: "In a session about health and sexually transmitted diseases, a student asked a question about fisting and was provided an explanation by an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health."
 * To this article's:"...a Department of Education and GLSEN sponsored conference at Tufts University for high school students which has become known as "Fistgate" in conservative circles, since part of the conference allegedly involved telling students how to properly "fist" another person."
 * I in no way endorse merging this article's portrayal of an employee responsible for answering student's questions doing his job as indoctrination of students allowed to run amuck on campus. The material is about as well covered in the Fistgate article as such borderline COATRACK subjects can be. Only concisely summarized, accurate, currently verifiable material, and most importantly, material directly concerning the new subject, should be moved.
 * For example, again, the article: "The MassNews story on the conference again became national news when President Barack Obama tapped Kevin Jennings to become "Safe School Czar". Jennings was the co-chairman of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth in 2000, and was one of the organizers of the "Fistgate" conference." This skips straight past the heart of the issue, the employee answering the question, to link Obama to one of the organizers of the conference, who is then linked to the controversy about the conference which is linked to the story that is linked to MassNews which is linked to Pawlick. That's too many degrees of separation to be anything other than trivial coverage, in my opinion, even in a newspaper. But it definitely does not belong in the proposed Pawlick article. Anarchangel (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Question, why is a redirect needed at all? I just did another search trying to connect the newspaper to the claims presented and found nothing again, plenty on Pawlick but not for this article. Personally I think there is no good reason to send readers to Pawlick's page who may be looking for something that actually is News in Massachusetts, I just can't see how redirecting people there is a good idea and everything that was mergable was already put in (thanks to Pburka for doing that!). So there is nothing left to merge and this newspaper is not notable. I think other entities called "Massachusetts News" might be but those looking for them are likely to be disappointed to get to the story of an anti-gay crusader. Thoughts? G-money 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What other entities called "Massachusetts News" are you aware of? Pburka (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this is a non-notable title of one of his printings. When I search for Massachusetts News I should not pull this up on Google, I should get actual news sites or on Wikipedia, I guess, a list of Massachusetts newspapers - which would not include this one. It would seem to be more harm than good given this is Wikipedia and search terms her are often the tops fro search engines. G-money 01:13, 27 March 2011 (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.