Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Monthly


 * 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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Salem Monthly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not establish notability, which makes sense because the newspaper is non-notable. I live in Salem, OR and I have never heard of it. Pablothegreat85 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant argument. DGG 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is relevant. Me not hearing of the newspaper may not be, but you are wrong to say that my entire argument is irrelevant.  Pablothegreat85 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)--- sorry i wasn't clear --that was the only part I meant. I think you may be right about notability.DGG 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, minimal assertion of notability and completely unsourced. Goodnightmush  Talk 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now has 3 sources. 1 seems to corroborate some, but the second is just a shipping address and the third 404. Goodnightmush  Talk 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as an established alternative monthly in Oregon's capital. Has good coverage of local politics and history from a different perspective from the Statesman Journal. Widely available for free all over downtown Salem, at businesses and in free-standing newspaper boxes. Article does need cleanup and expansion. Katr67 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments I don't want to resort to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I will point out that we have articles on the Eugene Weekly and Willamette Week. Granted, the SM hasn't won any awards so isn't as notable. And though this isn't a valid counter-argument either, I also live in Salem and have been aware of the SM since before I moved here. It's hard not to find a copy downtown, don't know about the rest of the city. That said, I'm having trouble finding outside references, though I did add a couple to the article. Any suggestions would be helpful. I'd like to find some circulation figures. BTW, I'm not associated with the publication in any way, just an interested local. Sadly, there's not quite enough culture in Salem to support an alternative weekly... Katr67 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Willamette Week to Salem Monthly.  Also, I'm not quite sure that the Eugene Weekly should have its own article.  If someone can show me that Salem Monthly is indeed notable I would be happy to withdraw the nomination.  Pablo the Great 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with Katr67 on notabality and also agree with Katr about cleanup being needed but we have a pressident of allowing Alternative newspapers as they do have a claim to nobality even though they are more outside the mainstream Seven Days (newspaper) For example. Your argument that you have never heard of it is not a reason for deletion although it is a valid argument. However we do usally use that as a main reason for deletion. -- St.daniel talk 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient assertion of notability, at least to the level of other similar alternative newspapers. Realkyhick 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like spam or, at best, a press release. The only quote is from the editor. I would ask, where is the notability? Where are the multiple sources needed under WP:NOTE? Take a close look at the pdf file linked on the page. It's fluff paper that writes easy going articles. There's just no notability here.  Jody B   00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a fair amount of hits on Google that are groups touting their coverage in the paper or referencing topics covered such as the deaf school debate. I've seen it on campus, but since I don't care about Salem I don't read it. Aboutmovies 07:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: just a general comment on newspaper notability. Who is supposed to cover a local paper, the local paper? In the small town I live in no paper is going to write about my local paper. Why would they want to promote a potential competitor for the limited ad revenue? And in towns with only a newspaper and no other media outlet, there is not going to be someone to cover a paper unless they win some important award. Now that would make them notable, but then there are a lot of entities that would no longer be notable if only important award winners were the sole criteria. I think newspapers in general should automatically meet notability requirements much like towns do (at least I’m assuming they do since the majority have only a census citation if that in the way of sources). But that’s my three cents. Aboutmovies 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep an actual newspaper that covers primarily a state capital city. It's ironic that an article written in this newspaper would be considered a "published work by a reliable source" to establish notability of another topic and yet this newspaper up for AfD itself. --Oakshade 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per two comments above, I realize this might be stretching things a bit, but being an established news outlet is a valid claim to notability IMO. --killing sparrows 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I am inclined to give greater latitude regarding referencing to media such as newspapers because the near-dearth of metareporting makes finding such citations challenging for even clearly notable titles. Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:36, 24 April 2007 (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.