Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times-Advocate


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC) NB: Article under discussion was subsequently moved in this dif to Daily Times-Advocate and remaining page was made a disambig page Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Times-Advocate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local weekly. The brief stories used for references are both on the change in owner and local. Fails CORP. See also Valley Roadrunner and its AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  WP:SPLIT content on former, possibly notable old paper into separate article and strong delete for content about 2014 paper  in addition to the nomination rationale, this article is WP:PROMO, created and developed primary by SOCKing editor clearly connected to parent company Roadrunner Publications, Inc., see SPI and connected contributors on Talk page.  The growing consensus is that we delete articles about marginally notable subjects created by conflicted editors - we are here to be used that way. Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (redact, and see note below Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)) (redact again, see below Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep but move to Daily Times-Advocate and delete the resulting redirect Times-Advocate (see my comments below). I have expanded this article to include more of the history of this paper and re-referenced it, adding references from two books (Early Escondido: The Louis A. Havens Collection and Photographing Farmworkers in California), the Times of San Diego, New York Times, etc.. I'm sure there are many more given its long history This paper has been around since 1909 and was originally a daily. I'm going to repeat here what I said at Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner: The COI of the creator is not a valid reason to delete an article if it can be fixed. Yet none of you !voting "delete" even tried to (a) find independent sources or (b) fix it. Given that many local newspapers are used in references and are often the only sources for local history, it is of considerable encyclopedic value both to readers and editors, to know the history and background of the source itself. Who created it is immaterial. AfD is not supposed to be used as a punishment. I have nominated and/or !voted "delete" in many, many COI/promo articles for non-notable subjects. I can't stand the stuff. However, I have also re-written, re-referenced, and rescued many others. In my view this is COI-phobia carried to an extreme, to the point where our readers are deprived of encyclopedic information. Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 June 2016‎
 * Keep per explansion by V. BMK (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment explaining my refined !vote. The newspaper created in 2014 has nothing to do with the old institution other than the name. For the new paper to take over the old name was great marketing: "When we were searching for a name that residents of both the Escondido and Valley Center areas might find appealing, it struck us that the Times-Advocate strikes the perfect note of a local and trusted news source,” the story states. “Happily, the name had fallen into the public domain, so we were able to pick it up and register it for our own use."  (ref)  For the creator of this article to actually couple them was intellectually dishonest, and not what we do here with similarly named topics.  This is understandable behavior for a self-promoting newbie editor.  The subsequent edits and !votes here by experienced editors are less easy to understand.   I just clarified and strengthened my !delete vote for this hot mess.  The stuff about the older institution should be WP:CONSPLIT into its own article.  Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (redact per article revisions and comment below Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Comment re page move In light of Jytdog's comments and on a careful re-reading of the North Coast Current source, I have revised the current article so that it's now solely about the original paper and makes clear that it has no connection to the publication launched in 2014. It seems to me that the problem can now be solved by a simple page move followed by deletion of the resulting redirect page Times-Advocate. This would be a good idea anyway given that there are quite a lot of other papers in the US and Canada known as the Times-Advocate. Note that WP:CONSPLIT requires keeping the original page source to preserve the edit history and despite the skullduggery of the article's creator, some of the content in the current article which pertains to the "real" Times Advocate was added by him. Anyhow, I'll leave it to the closing administrator to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment - well this is a new one in my experience - the article has been completely rewritten and focused on the older institution, with the new one a passing mention, which... is appropriate. Interesting.  The article that was nominated no longer exists and I have struck my vote as it was about something that doesn't exist anymore. User:John from Idegon do you consent to withdrawing your nomination?  We can deal with the page move at the article level, without this. I'm willing to do the logistics of the close if you do consent. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider it Withdrawn, with my thanks to for his hard work to save this and make it appropriate. Note that I do not feel quite the same about the other one, but will also withdraw it in the face of overwhelming opposition. John from Idegon (talk) 20:49, 7 June 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.