Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner

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 Nomination withdrawn as article was saved via editing. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Roadrunner

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

Non notable publication. Fails GNG John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 3/4 references are self published. External link leads to website of creator. Creator of article is the owner of the newspaper and small town publications are not notable enough for encyclopedia. Vchero (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG and even if some consider it marginally notable, it is here for promotion. That is enough reason to delete. We are not here for that Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have re-written and re-referenced this. This is a print newspaper which has been around for over 40 years and has been covered independently in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The COI and advertorial tone are 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. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not widely used in WP. I'll also note that editors with a COI should put articles through AfC so they can be peer reviewed before they publish. At minimum AfD puts it through a peer review to see if should be here at all. If it is improved to the point where it should exist through this process, great. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the fact that it is not currently widely used is immaterial, especially given the efforts to expunge any mention of it in any article because of its creator's COI. It could in theory be used to reference multiple articles in that area of San Diego County. 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) 09:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second edit conflict. I was just reviewing your work and was coming back here to change my !vote. You saved it. I do not appreciate the "COI-phobia" nor your other rhetoric but maybe we can talk about that some other time. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - saved via editing by Voceditenore Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Kudos to Voceditenore for WP:HEY article rescue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks so much for your contribution, Voceditenore! nice job making it objective Vchero (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the edits of Voceditenore. Thank you. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list of awards is sufficient to establish notability. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment, User:John from Idegon thanks for nominating; the article has been saved. do you consent to withdrawing your nomination? I'm willing to do the logistics of the close if you do consent. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn on the basis of a strong consensus to keep, however, I do not feel a local weekly paper gains notability simply from winning some regional awards. Obviously others mileage may vary. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2016 (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.