Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxbury 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Roxbury News

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable small market news website (see WP:NOTABILITY). Likely interesting to the denizens of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA, but does not register on an international scale. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It satisfies the primary WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no requirement for news companies to be "international" to be notable. --Blargh29 (talk) (original article writer) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Quote: The company is best known for producing news videos covering various city council and school board meetings. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - Coverage of local meetings has led to stories of wider importance. Also note that the reporter was subpoenaed, along with 5 other news organizations, to testify before a judge about a leak and its sources regarding a secret grand jury investigation. Roxbury's footage has been cited and used by several other publications, including the Central Penn Business Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - there's a presumption of notability under WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). However, I believe that presumption is rebutted as the coverage relates only to a non-notable subpoena to which they were one of a very large number of respondents, and being the victim of an entirely non-notable crime.  Wikipedia patently can't cover every person or organisation that's ever responded to a subpoena or been burglarised. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But this wasn't just any subpoena. This was a case where a defendant in a corruption case subpoenaed an internet newsman because he published information from a secret grand jury investigation. That's a unique occurrence, and shows the importance and reach (and therefore the notability) of Roxbury News.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be akin to a WP:BLP1E kind of issue; it can be covered through an article about the case itself. And - having worked eight years in the courts - if being subpoenaed in a case of that level of uniqueness is sufficient to establish notability, I'd be able to create dozens of new pages every day from our local courts alone.  Issuing a subpoena to someone doesn't demonstrate them as notable, it merely demonstrates that someone thought they'd have evidence relevant to their case.  Defendants can and do subpoena non-notable people all the time, and given the prosecution's obligation to bring forth all relevant evidence in the possession of the prosecution, material subpoenaed by defendants is especially likely to be of a (encylopedically) non-notable or "under the radar" variety. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that three newspapers across Pennsylvania reported on the the subpoenas and James Roxbury's testimony. So, it's not one of the "under the radar"/non-notability-demonstrating subpoenas. The fact that the subpoena and subsequent testimony were reported shows that Roxbury News is notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't agree with you. The coverage establishes a rebuttable presumption that the case itself may be notable, and that either or both of Roxbury News or James Roxbury may be notable within the context of that case.  (I'd rebut it.  It's common for newspapers to report on each individual witness within a high profile case - of which there may be hundreds - but that doesn't found an argument for encyclopedic notability of each individual witness.)  But even were the case notable, and Roxbury notable within it, that only founds an argument for placing information about them on the page of the case itself - it doesn't found an argument for them meeting the requirements for having a stand-alone page.  For further argument, see WP:NME, which is an essay, not policy, but may give you a guideline of where you're going wrong by how far short of the criteria proposed there Roxbury falls. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the secondary sources are not only about the grand jury case. There are reliable, secondary articles about the hacking, the robbery, multiple controversies caused by Roxbury News' footage from the Harrisburg Authority. Not to mention that Roxbury's footage has been used as a source for news reports from the Central Penn Business Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer. All of this adds up to notability, by either the General Notability Guideline or Notability (media). Also note that every single sentence in Roxbury News is backed with a citation. And not once is Roxbury News itself used as a source.--Blargh29 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how the hacking and burglary are relevant. If an otherwise ordinary citizen happened to be burglarised three times, and all three occasions were reported in the local news, that surely wouldn't entitle them to encyclopaedic coverage.  Being the victim of an otherwise unnotable crime can neither establish notability by itself or contribute towards notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But, these aren't reported in the police blotter, but rather they are given full blown articles--complete with bylines-- from the Patriot News, which is one of the top newspapers in the state. And each of the three articles mention the controversial nature of Roxbury News and its noteworthiness in the community. These articles demonstrate Roxbury News's notability by their very existence.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I live in Harrisburg, PA and have never heard of them. That said, the sources in the article certainly show notability in my eyes. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 1 October 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.