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. Keep-arguments amount to "it's relevant" and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers News

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it is probably too soon for this newspaper to have a Wikipedia article. I can't find any references on Google News or Google Books, and the sources in the article don't look sufficient to pass WP:ORG. One is from the Brown Daily Herald, a student newspaper (this may be enough to prove some local notability, but not the level of coverage that WP:ORG requires), and the other, the Comics Journal piece, is largely written by the Mothers News publishers. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm not really sure how the deletion process is supposed to be decided, but there's a few points that I think are worth mentioning and hopefully they will be relevant: 1. A comparable (and much less influential) monthly publication, Rhode Island Monthly has no sources at all and hasn't been deleted. 2. Publications are in a funny space generally because they tend not to be written about by other publications and therefore are under-reported on relative to impact. 3. Alternative and print-only papers in particular are less likely to have coverage from online, mainstream publications due to their subject nature. 4. Mothers News is particularly influential among notable artists and independent arts and music organizations: as these are not publications, is there another way to document their adoption / response? are blog posts from these orgs usable as sources? Disbooya (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Disbooya you certainly have good intentions, but Wikipedia is not just a place for any piece of information, WP:Notability and WP:ORG point to a much more indepth coverage of pieces. You have to remember that we need to be able to WP:Verify the information that we present to our readership in reliable sources such as newspapers with more editorial oversight then student newspapers, or regional magazines, in order to ensure that we aren't putting up any bad or facetious information, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadads, I appreciate your points, but as for verifiability, I think that everything in the article is either verified or verifiable to at least the level of most wikipedia articles. It doesn't seem like there is any question about veracity or sourcing, as Mothers News is clearly a real publication and there are no unusual or suspect claims made in the article. In fact, because Mothers News is itself a publication, claims about content are directly verifiable by observation of the paper itself. The involvement (through distribution or content contribution) of notable organizations and artists clearly establishes notability from my perspective, particularly in comparison to other significantly less notable and more poorly sourced articles about similar regional publications (such as Rhode Island Monthly and Providence Business News). It's very hard for me to see how those articles could possibly stay on Wikipedia while Mothers News is considered for deletion. Disbooya (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not meet WP:Notability for newspaper standards I see no harm in keeping the page, as it's a relevant piece of Providence art culture. Endlessmug (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (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.