Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ann Arbor Masonic 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ann Arbor Masonic News

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

(Note: I am helping an ip user create this afd page. I have no opinion whether this should be deleted or not.)— Chris! c / t 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PROD removed by article creator. Original PROD concern: This is a specialty newspaper, with a relatively small circulation. Fails Google test (added to talk page by nominating ip)— Chris! c / t 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per my original Prod. No sources to demonstrate any sort of notability.  I would have expected it to at least be referenced in various on-line Masonic archives and websites, but it seems not to be.  Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable publication, of no value beyond its very limited readership. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable 67 year old publication archived by various brick and mortar libraries including Bonisteel Masonic Library. Taking a quick look at what falls under the Journalism WikiProject you will find articles like this one to be very common. PeRshGo (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because it's old doesn't mean this article is notable. Google Search failed to find any reliable sources, and with that and a lack of reliable sources, I say we delete this article. And PeRshGo, there are articles about newspapers similar to this, but the reason why those have articles is that they have a claim to notability and there are reliable sources for them. The claim to notability by the article creator in the talk page seems weak to me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it's no weaker than the vast majority of articles in the Journalism WP, and for good reason. Local level media outlets rarely mention one another. PeRshGo (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note... I don't think it is quite right to describe this a "local level media outlet" (or even "Journalism" for that matter)... If you actually look at the publication in question, we are talking about a monthly organizational newsletter for local level chapters within the organization. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for the large number of papers published by political parties which appear on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just gave notice of this AFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism.
 * Keep and improve. I would prefer not to comment, in part as I am not familiar with notability standards for publications.  But I was invited at my Talk page to come !vote here by ALR and, to avoid other misunderstandings, I guess i should take a position.  This AFD arose after I made a complaining type note at Talk:The Ann Arbor Masonic News about Masonic-focussed editors beseiging a different article (List of Masonic buildings). Pershgo responded with some decent argument, including questioning whether wikipedia would be better for removing this article about the long-running journal.  It would not.  As I said there, I do think the article can use better support, but it seems like good sources will not pop up from easy on-line searching.  The sources about Masonic buildings are not on-line either, but they exist and are good/better than internet stuff easily accessible to some of the same participants.  We're all amateur researchers; not all topics are easily addressed in a few keystrokes online.  While this article will not be included in the next Wikipedia Version 2.0 edited for issue on CDs, it has a certain quality to it and the topic can yet prove to be fully valid by regular criteria.  So, I say let it develop.  Revisit in 5 years or so. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues being discussed at the List of Masonic buildings article have nothing to do with this article, please do not try to "poison the well" by raising them here. Do you have any reason to believe that this article can be improved or supported through reliable sources?  Or do you merely hope and assume that something exists to support the article?  Have you looked for sources? (I have).  Have you looked at the publication in question? (you can access it here)... I think you may be assuming that it is of a higher quality and caliber than it is.
 * I would urge all editors to deal with what is, rather than what we assume or hope for. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way the fact is this AFD is an example of WikiLawyering. docram got mad one day because you were going after List of Masonic buildings so he decided he was going to pick on some weak Masonic articles to prove a point. I got him to back down but so his point could no longer be made you put this article up for AFD. I suppose I could assume good faith but that would require the magical fortune of you both finding this little noncontroversial stub I made. This article will probably be deleted as most local articles can’t survive the trial by fire but no matter which way it goes none of this can be considered good faith, just another article in a long list of battlegrounds. PeRshGo (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do assume good faith... I came across the article because someone recently added a Wikiproject watch list function to the Freemasonry WikiProject page, and it came up as an article with a recent change. I prodded it after looking for references and sources to support the article and discovering that there weren't any.  The fact that Doncram had also questioned whether it was notable had nothing to do with why I prodded it.  I would have prodded it in any case.  The fact is, the publication that is the subject of this article is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia.  Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree largely with Pershgo, though I think it is okay for me to browse in Masonic topic articles and note problems. I disbelieve Blueboar's assertion that the discussion of notability on the Talk page, with me and ALR commenting, had nothing to do with decisions by Blueboar to prod and/or AFD.  Or, is Blueboar asserting that he did not read the Talk page when making such decisions, which would be worse? --doncram (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... If you don't want to assume good faith, I doubt anything I can say I will convince you.  So I am not even going to try.  Your opinion of my motivations does not change the fact that there are no sources that mention or refer to this publication, it does not change the fact that the only library that seems to archive this publication is directly attached to the same small group of lodges that publish the newsletter.  It does not really matter what you think my motivations for supporting deletion are...   The facts speak for themselves... the publication is not notable and the article should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at the article, not the dispute, it appears that this paper is devoted only to Masonic activities in one particular county, with some coverage of those in Michigan--one single state. . Individual branches of societies are almost never considered notable  at Wikipedia  except under the most exceptional circumstances. The newspaper published by one city's group of lodges would logically be a degree less notable yet. The intrinsic quality of the paper is irrelevant, unless it were to be so important as to win major prizes at a national level, & there is not the slightest evidence for any awards at any level.  fwiw, many Masonic building are notable, but that's as buildings, not as the location of lodges. I can imagine Wikipedia extending its coverage very broadly, but I cannot imagine it ever including articles local newsletters such as this.     DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (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.