Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Broad Ripple Gazette


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Broad Ripple Gazette

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article, edging dangerously close to an outright advertisement, for a community newspaper with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability under our inclusion rules for publications. Every last "reference" here, in fact, is a primary source of one sort or another (content on the newspaper's own website, the blogs or business websites of individual people listed in the contributors list, and on and so forth) — so none of the sourcing properly confers or demonstrates notability, and the paper is not automatically entitled to keep an article on here just because it exists. There's also an apparent conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the person noted in the article as the paper's founder. So in this state it's a delete, unless real sources can be brought to bear. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

- I am the editor of the newspaper. We are an all-volunteer community newspaper that has been published for more than 10 years. The paper is enjoyed by more than 7000 residents every two weeks, it doesn't just "exist" as you put it. We have no interest in advertising for it. I am trying to honor the long list of volunteers and the historical stories we have written over the years. All of the entries are by me because no one else could possibly have this information. I think it would be a shame to remove the page, but if you do not want this information about what we have accomplished for our neighborhood, then I guess there is nothing I can do. I don't see how this is different from the page for the Indianapolis Star. Those facts have certainly come from employees of the Star. Mine did to. I am the only employee are the Gazette. I started the paper in 2004 and do the layout, writing, and delivery. Our volunteer writers would not have any of the information that I have posted. Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, a newspaper has to actually be the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Most major daily newspapers actually do pass that test, and it's absolutely possible for community weeklies to pass it too — we don't have a "small vs. large" bias when it comes to newspapers, but we do have a requirement that whatever size the publication is, the article still has to cite proper sources that support a claim of notability which satisfies WP:NMEDIA. The Indianapolis Star wouldn't be allowed to keep an article either, if it wasn't citing any legitimate sources to demonstrate that it belonged in an encyclopedia — but it is citing legitimate sources, while this article isn't. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)



The editing that has occurred is arbitrary and irritating. I am unwilling to have a partial list of the long history of writers, the main reason for the page. The ones someone has deemed "keepable" is completely without thought or consideration. If this is what can stay up, then please remove the page completely. If that is something I can do, please let me know. -Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The editing that has occurred" was not arbitrary; as I've explained before, you need to cite reliable source coverage, and the change that you're taking issue with was the removal of anybody in the writers list whose inclusion there was entirely unsourced. Please also read our conflict of interest rules — if you're the publisher of the paper you do not get to control the content of a Wikipedia article about it (it gets controlled by our content rules, not by your demands), so what you're "willing" or "unwilling" to have in the article counts for nothing either way. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So even though I created the content, I am not allowed to delete any of it, but you are? I will no longer support Wikipedia or any of the content of the Gazette page. This is not something I wish to be associated with. I plan to share this with my 7000 readers, Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC) What you are not understanding is that you have removed so much pertinent information that what remains is an inaccurate depiction of the paper. It leaves writers in that did little, and leaves off those who wrote for years. It is now a misleading article and should be removed. -Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted, but the reason why that's the case is because it isn't compliant with our content rules. Not being compliant with your wishes is irrelevant to the question, because we don't exist as a venue to publish promotional advertisements. We're an encyclopedia, not a marketing database, and it's our rules or nothing. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - could this be appropriately added as a section in the article on Broad Ripple? And it could also be linked from the articles on the other communities it serves. In such a case, I think it would be best to drop the table of writers, although if any of them have independent notability, they could be linked from the Broad Ripple article. Also, if the community is served by other newspapers it would only be fair to at least mention them. LaMona (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be an acceptable solution too (Media in Indianapolis would also be an acceptable redirect target) but very little of the content here is properly sourced enough to be included in Wikipedia at all — so for the moment the most we could do would be a single sentence in the target article acknowledging that the publication exists. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 21 August 2014 (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.