Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cooper Review


 * 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 -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Cooper Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't appear to me to meet the general notability guideline. The only substantial source for this article is a listing on the website of the Texas Press Association (which similarly lists more than 500 other Texas papers, making this run-of-the-mill). All other sources appear to be primary sources or only passing mentions; even a book-length history of the county ("Images of America: Delta County") gives only half a sentence to the paper. I couldn't independently turn up anything beyond a few passing mentions in Google Books and Google News searches.

It also doesn't appear to me to meet the more stringent criteria of Notability (periodicals)--significant impact in its field, major national awards, etc. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Good article that is clearly notable. The paper has been going since 1880, from the old west era right through to the modern era. The article is well written with decent sources. It's a keeper. scope_creep talk 15:59, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that it's well-written, but what sources did you find that discuss the Cooper Review in detail? Maybe you could add them to the article? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, There are several points to make here: The Cooper Review does pass GNG in terms of awards, leadership in the Texas Press Assocation and for its historical interest and claim to fame as the longest operating business in that area of Texas. Most important, I believe the nominator has made an error by using the obscure Notability (periodicals), which is meant technically for non-media serials (the "regular schedule"), instead of the more appropriate Notability (media) standard, which is meant for traditional media even if they are considered serials (as all newspapers and magazines will overlap in both areas). The later standard explicitly mentions newspapers and the former does not and refers to academic journals, etc. The latter is a consensus driven and not policy driven standard. Under the latter criteria, one would count the claim to fame above as well as taking into account its place in Texas media. I have no doubt that this is a keeper. Crtew (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some fresh content was added to clarify its position under the media notability guidelines. Crtew (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the revisions to the article; I think they've resolved the situation neatly. I did want to note for the record that I think you're misreading both my nomination and Notability (periodicals), though. My biggest concern was the lack of secondary sources dealing with this subject in a substantive way--since nobody who's responded here has found a single secondary source that discusses the subject in detail, we seem to at least all half-agree that that's the case. You can read the GNG at WP:GNG--that specific guideline has nothing to do with a publication's age or awards, but a simple question of whether secondary sources exist that discuss the subject in detail.
 * As for whether Notability (periodicals) applies to newspapers, its first sentence is "This guideline reflects the community's current consensus about the notability of periodicals, including magazines, newspapers, academic journals, and similar periodic publications." If you feel this guideline is incorrect, you might consider revising it or nominating it for deletion, but in the meantime, I don't think it's an "error" to refer to it as a supplement to the GNG.
 * All that said, I'm okay with using the weaker guideline of Notability Media, and agree that the material you've added meets that guideline. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination per that rationale. Thanks again for your constructive approach--it's really appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Cirt's point and saw that those sources point to our notability guidelines. This entry would be a good search for print sources at the local and state level if we have somebody on the ground there. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true Notability (periodicals) mentions newspapers and magazines but it's written for general serials. Notability (media) might seem weaker but it's more useful for looking at newspapers and magazines as it focuses on those. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (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.