Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Haven Voice


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

West Haven Voice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. I'm not considering WP:CORP because, as the admin who declined A7, observed, the article targets the publication rather than the publisher. Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Online sources are limited to West Haven Voice's online presence and two online indices of newpapers. Additionally, a Google newspaper search brought no results for other sources talking about the West Haven Voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was created as part of this project: WikiProject_Newspapers by a student who is learning to create Wikipedia articles.
 * While the current article is missing other citations, that is an easily fixable problem. WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability has a good discussion on how for local newspapers, one could use some more relaxed criteria of notability. Emu14 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look through the essay, and I found I disagreed with a number of the criteria to consider. For example, "Its leadership is repeatedly quoted in other reliable sources, with reference to their leadership title and their expertise on the publication's topic ...". In evaluating the notability of a person, that the person may be quoted a lot is typically discounted as a sign of notability, I think to some extent on the grounds that it might just mean that they happen to be the knowledgable person with whom a particular journalist is familiar, or because the person is issuing PR on the subject. To say that, if the person leads a newspaper, that it indicates notability of the newspaper is a stretch and, in addition, runs up against WP:NOTINHERITED.
 * "Changes in ownership or leadership are covered by other newspapers in its region or covering a similar topic": For businesses, these are generally treated as routine coverage (as with people's births, marriages, and deaths, corporate openings, acquisitions, and dispositions often receive perfunctory coverage, often driven by press releases, without the business ever receiving significant coverage on account of its actual operations. I'd say that applies to newspapers.
 * I wasn't intending to give the essay a thorough review, just giving my two cents. Largoplazo (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. By the way, I don't think I'd find my own community's comparable newspaper to meet the requirements. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When the student set the "ceased publication" parameter of The Wellesley Townsman infobox to read "penis", was that part of their experience in learning to create Wikipedia articles? Also, the same editor created another copy of The Waterbury Observer today, copying the copyrighted highly promotional text wholesale from the newspaper's website, both of which are issues about which that editor had already been warned. The student needs to work harder on the learning, I'm afraid. Largoplazo (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for bringing the vandalism issue and the copyright issue to my attention. This is very serious and I will discuss this with the student in question. I appreciate your concern and time and care. Definitively this is not what I want students to be doing on Wikipedia. Emu14 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - shenanigans Largoplazo, you should not be reverting edits [] on an article you're calling for deletion. This is a form of wp:own, as you're effectively "guarding" the article against improvement. Also, Coatrack? Surely you jest! I guess you've never heard of Time (magazine), The New York Times or The Washington Post? There is nothing unusual about listing notable contributors (staff) in an article, or about what they did which was notable. I am not reverting this so as to avoid an edit war, and ask you do restore the point. If you want this to proceed as a deletion request, it should be done cleanly. Markvs88 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some edits may be improvements and some may bw worsening the text. Even deletions can be improvements if they are made according to policy and the encyclopaedic purpose of Wikipedia. I have participated in AfD discussions where I suggested Deletion but I also tried to improve the article by adding and/or substracting from the text. But I agree the specific deletion (about staff) should not have been made. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did you ever get the idea that once one has nominated an article for deletion, one must lay off of ordinary editing work on the article? No, ordinary editing in keeping with guidelines of other people's contributions is not a form of WP:OWN. And, no, I wasn't jesting in the slightest. Something unrelated to the newspaper that once happened to a person who had previously been at that newspaper isn't relevant to the newspaper. It provides no information to the reader about the newspaper. For that reason, I didn't believe it belonged in the article. You're welcome to disagree and discuss it, but it doesn't merit your characterization of my edit.
 * Also, it isn't clear why you raised this here, since your concerns about my edit have nothing to do with consideration of this article for deletion. It's off-topic here. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ordinary editing would be fine. Reverting a cited newly added point without discussion especially when you're the one calling for an article's deletion isn't just a form of OWN, it *reeks* of OWN. And I brought it up here as it totally chills new additions to an article and you deserve to be called out on the carpet for it. Is that on topic enough for you?
 * On the other note, it absolutely contributes to the notability of the newspaper.
 * PS - Thanks, The Gnome. I appreciate your addition. Markvs88 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your invocation of WP:OWN goes against the entirety of that essay, the crux of which involves insistence, repetition, and a pattern of behavior. A single edit based on guidelines clearly explained in the edit summary doesn't carry even a whiff of WP:OWN, let alone reek of it, and the fact that I also didn't consider the article's subject notable doesn't change that. And, Oh! My! God!, a single edit in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines "reeks" and "chills" and "deserves to be called out on the carpet". This is unbelievable drama and I'm not buying into it one iota. Just, please, don't make up your own rules for behavior. And, no, it is still not remotely on topic here. That's what the article's talk page is for. Where do you think you'd be complaining about my edit if there didn't also happen to be a deletion discussion going on? Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that any time a person receives a single surge of attention for a single newsworthy event (which doesn't consistently suffice to find even the person himself notable, per WP:SUSTAINED), it suddenly adds notability to every place that person had previously worked, gone to school, spent his summers, etc., is an absurdity (unless it can be said that that previous affiliation had some connection with later notability, such as being a source of the person's experience or expertise relevant to the later notability; in this case, no connection has been drawn between a reaction to a depiction of slavery and having once worked for the newspaper) . WP:NOTINHERITED. Largoplazo (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Subject does not yet possess adequate, independent notability. Wikipedia is not a scholarship project nor a depository of information. The creator's vandalism should be duly punished per policy but is irrelevant in deciding about the contested article; a subject's standing should never suffer from editors' actions.  -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (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.