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. It is a clear outcome in this case.

The keep !votes are almost entirely from new accounts located in the relevant local area. It is also reasonable to believe that at least some of those !votes were procured by an "email" referred to by one of them. Even so, these keep !votes universally fail to support the inclusion of the article by reference to accepted inclusion standards such as WP:N and WP:GNG. The remaining keeps (eg MichaelQSchmidt) do, but it is clear that the view that the subject has received significant coverage does not have consensus. The delete !voters have acknowledged the existence of some sources - in particular coverage of the legal action and one other article in "Eastside City Arts" - but have formed the view that the coverage is not significant. That view has a clear consensus support by reference to accepted inclusion standards. Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Sun

[edit]
Eastside Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very low on reliable sources to show notability. The website shows a current issue, despite the previous notice that publication was ceasing. I'd say, unless we can find sourcing that explains exactly what the heck is going on with this paper, we shouldn't be covering it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight. Brianhe (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight. Brianhe (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curses! He's blown our cover, guys. Time to head back to the Courier offices and come up with a new plan to destroy the Sun (evil rubbing of hands)The Eskimo (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this would be funny if it were not so close to the truth. Disliking the editorial content of The Sun is not sufficient reason to delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Well, let me say this: I've never seen the Eastside Sun in real life; my work on the article was always to deal with vandalism and incorrect additions; I couldn't give a flying goddamn about it other than that. So do me a favour and make accusations someplace else, preferably with some semblance of proof before you do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those names are called SOCKPUPPETS, it allows Beyond My Ken to try and influence discussions by making it appear other people share his viewpoint. Very old trick
  • (Comment added after closing) Just noticed these comments. Please see this for my backstory. My editing of the article was in no way "punitive", and in fact served to improve it considerably. My "delete" !vote was a recognition that, even though considerable time had past, the subject's notability had still not been established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question is exactly covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF on the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In a nutshell each article should stand on its own merit. — Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That appears to be more focused on the owner again. Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it makes sense that someone might interview a newpaper's publisher, and so in answering your posed question, the article does contain information about the paper that does not deal with the lawsuit. I would be fine if the two sentences dealing with the publisher's lawsuit were removed from the article, as WP:GNG instructs that the topic being sourced (IE: the nespaper) does not have to be the main focus of a source, and there is information in the sources about his suit that can be used to expand and cite the article without ever mentioning that suit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked if something covered the newspaper in any manner other than the lawsuit... a reasonable request... and I replied. And while you might term the lawsuit itself as "dodgy", the article is not (or should not) be about the lawsuit. So with that caveat in mind, we are allowed to seek information to source the article about a newspaper in what sources that may be available... and even though some of the references do deal with a lawsuit, we might per policy (and all the anon IPs herein notwithstanding), find other pieces of information about the newspaper in such articles. Cheers, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to forgive Tony when he uses words like 'dodgy', it seems he'd rather censor than admit there are views out there that conflict with his own. Sad that we'll lose articles that he doesn't like or agree with, but that's what makes Wikipedia interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to say about the merits of the article? — Brianhe (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those four editors who you think are "scared" of the publication, and taking "orders" to get it deleted, are highly respected, and average over 15,000 edits between them (Susan pulls that number down a bit with a measly 2,000+. Of course, she hasn't been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, like Brianhe, for instance.) And at least two of them are sysops, so please don't accuse people of being involved some sort of conspiracy against the Sun. If you were to read between the lines of the criticism above, you could glean some good suggestions on how to possibly improve the article so it might meet the notability guidelines. The Eskimo (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voted 'delete' because this article appears, to me, to be about a subject that does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I've never heard of the Eastside Sun, I don't know anyone associated with it, and I've never been anywhere near Kirkland, Washington. There is no conspiracy, and the new users who are convinced that there is one are merely making themselves sound silly. If this is a noteworthy publication, rather than commenting on your conspiracy theories, just link to some of the national-level awards this periodical has won, or articles about its significance in trade journals, and it'll be kept. No amount of silly accusations will keep the article, but a few good sources certainly would. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read The Eastside Sun from cover to cover every issue because it is NOT like a small town paper, it picks fights with corrupt police and names worthless city employees and backs it up with evidence and research. Its more like The Shinbone Star than a fishwrapper. I especially take offense at Tony Fox who is working tirelessly to delete this publication because "Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims." Similar claims?? He attacks one newspaper because he's heard something about other lawsuits by other people and he has the mental capabilities to determine that they are exactly the same? Perhaps he could save us money by replacing The Supreme Court. Has he read the depositions and arguments from both sides? Does he know the three city employees? It would be amazing if he did because I live here and I don't. Anyway, I don't have an Wiki-account but my name is Marilynne Reade. BTW FischerQueen, you may feel enough superiority to we serfs to refer to us as Silly People as you did in history:

19:43, 24 November 2010 FisherQueen (talk | contribs) (28,223 bytes) (silly people) (undo)

but at least we have the courtesy to make reasoned arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After looking at the above comments, it's clear that FisherQueeen stated "No amount of silly accusations will keep the article"[7] ... at no point did she call anyone "Silly people" as you claimed. Please avoid making false accusations, and please don't use personal insults and attacks as you did in your comments about Tony Fox. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defense, Barek, but I did, in fact, use the edit summary 'silly people.' I think that 'silly' is not a particularly harsh criticism, but I certainly apologize if I hurt this person's feelings. I will revise 'silly people' to 'people who are utterly ignorant of Wikipedia's rules,' which is factually true, if that makes her feel better. I note that the person who objects has, like the other people invited here by some email, not shown any sign that he has yet read the Wikipedia rule we are discussing, or that he is aware that we are discussing the question of whether or not this publication meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. We've all seen this pattern before- an AfD is flooded with non-helpful comments from people who don't understand Wikipedia's rules and think that they are participating in a vote, the AfD discussion is a big confusing mess, and ultimately, the closing admin only looks at the comments which address Wikipedia's rules, ignoring all the rest of the comments. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very heartfelt apology Susan. Calling people ignorant is SO much better.

What's more is that these people have been involved with conflict over this article over at least a YEAR (it appears from the IP addresses to be the ones who have been arguing on the talk page for at least that long), and have not bothered to read any of WP's rules in that time. Not that I claim to be an expert on them myself, and yes there are a LOT of them, especially for infrequent editors, but the notability one is a biggie that is clearly being ignored.--Susan118 talk 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working tirelessly, am I? Yes, I've got a vast vendetta against the Eastside Sun, you know, a newspaper that I've never even seen in the wild and which I could care less about. I and the other editors who are being personally attacked by this growing horde of insulting IPs and single-purpose accounts have done nothing more than try to apply Wikipedia's rules and guidelines regarding notability, so kindly shelve your idiotic conspiracy theories, then make some arguments based in Wikipedia's rules as to why this article should exist. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this is OUR community's newspaper you are trying to pass judgment on. No one in Duluth cares about the 80,000 people in our city, but we care greatly.
  • Barry, Susan118 had "suspicions" (at least in her book) about why people/IPs were chiming in from the area this publication serves. My answer was to assuage those concerns, NOT to address the topics you discuss.

We ARE a small newspaper by any standards - established July 2006.
We ARE controversial.
We ARE embroiled in not one but two lawsuits.
We ARE occasionally A--holes and we've made some enemies.

But in our defense we apply time-honored checks and balances to our editorials. We don't seek the ouster of a public official until their actions rise to the level of inexcusable. We don't seek the termination of a police officer until 3 separate sources swear to his corruption. We sought intermediate steps prior to pursuing the lawsuit. We met with the superior of the guilty parties only to have her lie to our faces. When no action was taken we took action.

Wikipedia is a first-time-ever experiment where anyone can edit anything. It is a resource that every newspaperman on the planet probably uses at one time or another, myself included. I've watched our page over the years and even contributed to it - something I learned later was a no-no. Just today I researched House M.D., A cooking show with Gen Anderson and The HMS Britannic, the sister ship of the Titanic (only to learn we were misspelling it as Britanic). Needless to say, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource.

But this bickering has to stop. Yes, I too find it interesting that a few editors find us so terribly interesting and in need of deletion, but - like being in a crowded bar at closing time - you can make book on the fact we will always attract that one 'special' person who will go on to make our life a living hell...

I've reviewed the edits of all the 'Delete' editors mentioned and we are not the only article they've ever worked on, edited, nominated for deletion or heavily censored. There is no reason to believe there is any vendetta going on, just watching, watching, watching. Day and night, 24/7... watching us. Wow, suddenly I got this chill. Anybody got a Xanax?

In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it. Feel free to contact me to verify this message's authenticity. Our phone number and email can be found on page two of this month's issue available online (www.eastsidesun.com) and at newsstands in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Issaquah (look it up, it's a real city) and Renton.

But knock off the bickering or, I swear to god, I'm coming back there with a switch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be new here. Wikipedia runs on bickering. PhGustaf (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
As the publisher, you are in a very good position to comment on the only subject that is relevant to this discussion: whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and whether the Eastside Sun has been written about in any depth by other publications. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FischerQueen. Dang, you are quick, I just finished writing that entry! In this era where every publication is scratching for the same shrinking pool of advertisers, there is no reason why ANY of our competitors should promote The Eastside Sun. We don't mention them and there is no reason for them to mention us. Remember 'All ink is good ink' which is another way of saying if they write about you they give you legitimacy.
Sure, I've had a few interviews over the years re: exploits in SE Asia, Gulf Coast, mideast etc., but The Eastside Sun per se gets very little promotion from our competitors - and that is as it should be. Hope that answers your question. (signed) John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the publisher: I should note that it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are covered by a direct competitor. There are other journalism outlets, for example trade journals within the publishing industry, or perhaps your paper has been covered by journalism in other media (TV stations, radio stations, websites) which have provided useful information. Just to expand a bit on the reasoning behind this: Wikipedia strives to have articles which are neutrally written and verifiable and factually accurate. In order to assure that our articles meet all of those standards, the articles need to have information which is referenced to reliable, independent sources. If sources simply do not exist, then Wikipedia has established that it is better to simply not have an article about a subject than it would be to have one which was unbalanced, dubious, or false. Without independent sourcing, and reliable sourcing, it would be impossible to assure that our articles were trustworthy. It's that simple. The concept of notability, as defined at Wikipedia, exists simply to assure that the sources exist with which we can research and write quality articles. No sources = no article. I hope, as the publisher of a work which hopefully itself values verifiability, balance, and truthfulness, you understand why Wikipedia has these standards. --Jayron32 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, in that you do not seem to understand. WOW, passive/aggressive much? Wikipedia is not a forum for snotty comments, petty insults and to try and talk down to people. I don't know nor do I care why you have this need to act in this way Eskimo, but there are other forums for that attitude. The fellow came into this discussion in a humorous vein to try and enlighten us about the publication for which he works - the least we can do is treat him with respect. He even refrained from voting, instead closing with "In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it." Pretty classy, you might take notes. 184.78.226.208 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. It is a discussion of whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are listed below. Every single comment on this page which is not about that subect (including this one) will be ignored by the administrator who reads the discussion and decides whether to keep or delete the article-that admin will only give weight to the comments which discuss the evidence that the Eastside Sun is a notable organization. He did not 'refrain from voting.' He made an effort to discuss the question of whether independent sources on this subject exist: he says that they do not, which means that, in the consideration of this discussion, he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You open your comment with "This is not a vote." and close it with the spectacular assumption that "he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article"! Your IQ results are in so I guess the only question that remains is 'Have you no shame?'
Putting 'voting' in quotation marks is a way of signifying 'it is not really a vote, but the word is a grammatically simple way of expressing this idea.' I'm sorry that you don't understand what a deletion discussion is, and aren't willing to read the rules for yourself, and don't believe me when I try to explain it... I don't think there is anything more I can do to help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To regular contributors, I am VERY sorry for doing this and will face the music for being disruptive if necessary, but it seems that some on this thread will not take the time to click on a simple link offered over and over again. PLEASE NOTE: At the very core of the issue, THIS is what we are talking about...base your arguments for keep on the following:

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. with apologies The Eskimo (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
  2. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English.
  3. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
  4. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
  5. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
More