Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boca Raton Tribune


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Boca Raton Tribune

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable local newspaper. Appears to be wholly written by the publisher of the paper who both removed a PROD and the COI template. Refs only show that it exists. Fails WP:GNG which is surprising for a newspaper  Velella  Velella Talk 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  04:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per our policy of IAR. I feel the same way about newspapers that I do about academic journals — they all should be automatically included since (a) it is something that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include; and (b) they are used as "reliable sources" (so-called) in Wikipedia, and we owe it to our readers to allow the investigation of the quality of this or that source being used to document our articles. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - ignoring all rules and treating all newspapers and academic periodicals as inherently notable would give credibility to all the vanity academic publishers of non peer-reviewed "research" and would allow in every individual with access to a photocopier who produced a so-called Newspaper. Sorry, but this isn't a good place to ignore all rules  Velella  Velella Talk  12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Winner of two non-notable awards. One of those was for charity efforts rather than journalism. Fails GNG.  The most significant coverage I found was two articles regarding alleged plagiarism. 1 2 Gab4gab (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like a weekly shopper with an inflated reputation, and Gab4gab's finding of stories involving plagiarism by the publication aren't inspiring. Very little hard news outside of rip-and-read regurgitations of local law enforcement notices and a whole lot of fluff. Of course the "60,000 households" doesn't mean that all of them are reading a free paper, a common claim for shoppers to claim notability here, which I can't find.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- "weekly" and "free of charge" does not a notable newspaper make. Do not see sufficient notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2016 (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.