Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Santa Monica Observer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a hoax, while the website indeed does exist, the articles on it are almost certainly fake reports (I came here while searching Google News, which stupidly has indexed this fake site (see ) ). I could not find any RS confirming this, but I'm certain this is the case. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To make matters worse there are articles that have citations to the website. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It definitely seems shady. Found YELP reviews  and this 2009 lawsuit against them . MB 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is coverage about them being called a newspaper "that has virtually no journalistic quality to it whatsoever", news coverage about the lawsuit against SMO . Here is a Santa Monica history book listing it as a newspaper started in 1998 .  Here is coverage that says "Santa Monica Observer plays fast and loose with the facts" and it's "unclear whether the authors are real people" .  Here is a report saying the SMO story on pot was NOT true  and another .  There might be enough here for an article documenting all the reports that is not reputable. MB 04:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a real newspaper and should have an article, but the publication seems to engage in some shady practices. Instead of deleting the article, editors should improve it to report controversies and legal troubles in which it has been involved. Link #7 above, for an article with "Fake News" in the headline, is about "santamonicanews.org," NOT the Santa Monica Observer, which is the subject of the article we're discussing. DonFB (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source indicating the newspaper's authenticity. DonFB (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weird, I did look for sources relating to it, but could find none, I thought this was just some site set up by a crook with SEO skills to manipulate results on Google News. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Link #7 above is about both. If you read far enough, the second part is about the SMO and it questions if the reporters listed in its articles are made up.  The fact that this is a real newspaper does not automatically make it notable. A weekly paper with a circulation of 1200 is tiny.  All such minor publications need to meet GNG if they don't meet WP:NMEDIA, which this one does NOT. The few mentions questioning its reliability are something, but I'm leaning towards not-notable. MB 00:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-noted, and my bad for a hasty scan and not reading thoroughly. As noted here, it's been the subject of negative coverage about its work, but it's not a hoax site. I don't know that its circulation or publication frequency are necessarily factors in its notability (the Village Voice is a weekly) but I'd like to know the source for the 1200 figure. DonFB (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 1200 figure comes from the source you provided (link #10). Circulation/frequency help toward WP:NMEDIA Newspapers#4. A small paper is not going to be "frequently cited by other reliable sources".  I don't see any chance of it meeting any of the other criteria (award winning, historic, reliable, or significant). MB 02:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Although it exists, it is not significant. MB 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a non notable tabloid which may or may not be a real news outlet. Here's what I was able to find from Santa Monica Next: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a repeat of #7 above. MB</b> 01:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's like a garage band, just not Notable until somebody else takes real note of it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete MB's argument is compelling and logical. The sources too are rudimentary. Lourdes  10:06, 4 February 2017 (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.