Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foothills Paper


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Foothills Paper

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

non notable local paper/newsletter. no third party coverage. fails WP:GNG. (and it may be worth noting that the creator of this article was blocked for libel requiring oversight removal of edits related to this article and that the article had been deleted via PROD, but was recreated at the request of an IP whose only edit has been to request the undeletion) --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely non-notable. Free biweekly paper with small circulation; described as "the paper with an attitude!; current issue contains virtually no news, just a retrospective on a 2009 fire, plus coming-events blurbs, opinion items, and ads. (Don't bother looking, it takes forever to load.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Bizarre to think this article was un-deleted for no obvious reason! I can't see any coverage about Foothills Paper apart from a couple of blog-like entries. Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a procedural restore - when a PRODed article is contested after the fact, we generally restore it with few or no questions, since a PROD is based on the fact that no one objects to the deletion and a REFUND request is proof that someone does object. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Question The article, which is a stub, states that the newspaper has a readership of 6000 to 7000 people. If this unsourced claim is correct, does it not make it notable? Just asking for my knowledge, thanks. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. If we're talking local papers, this is actually a fairly small number. My local paper gets a readership of about 100,000+ on average. It's one of the more major papers in my area but it's not one that you'd see on the shelves of news stands in other states. Having a higher readership number makes it more likely that there will be sources, but we don't really keep articles based on how many readers something has.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Potential redirect to List of newspapers in California. I can't find any independent and reliable coverage to show that this paper is notable. At the very most it might be listed in the list of California newspapers and redirected, but I'm not entirely happy with that idea because it really hasn't received any coverage. It's your typical non-notable paper and I'm not sure that every paper needs to be listed in the article for each state. I'm leaning towards a total delete, but I won't really argue much if someone wants to redirect this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my description of the current issue (see above): this is not a "news"paper, because its content does not seem to include any news. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2012 (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.