Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Free Press

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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Free Press[edit]

Not WP:Notable. This is a small local newspaper which has only been mentioned because of some controversial remarks by its editor. An article about him might work but the paper itself is very minor, distributed freely twice a month with a total circulation of 15,000. Borock (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs work, but I can pick out some good sources via Google: [1] (they're hard to find, but they're there). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think any newspaper is going to get mentioned once and a while by other newspapers. It's hard to imagine one less notable than this however. They give it away free and only 15,000 people read it. Borock (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems like just another give away newspaper...probably more advertising by having a wikipage than anything else. That said, its not completely un notable. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks WP:GNG. Small, free newspaper. Any mention in 3rd party sources is because of the publisher, not the paper. The publisher himself seems like he could pass notability, but the article isn't about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The newspaper may be small, local, read only by 15,000 people... but basically it is notable Rirunmot (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Atrociously written. Rewrite at the very least. Anarchangel (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Marginally notable and probably worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep. CoM, what's wrong with the world? We agree too often. The paper sounds like a somewhat distasteful rag, and after looking at their page, I see that it is. I mean, CoM, seriously, who would doubt that Obama has a valid US birth certificate? But a Google search does reveal some hits that suggest notability, marginal as it may be. Oh, Anarchangel is quite right about the writing--could do with some tweaking. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me Doc. Do these people think Biden would be an improvement? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paper itself fails WP:GNG, but to use this information for an article about the publisher also fails WP:GNG. I suggest moving the paragraph about the editorial attack on Obama to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#Controversies, allegations, and scandals during the primary campaign, and the paragraph about Walden's book to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Campaign developments, and delete the rest. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is poorly written. If overhauled and organized better, then notability would be clearer. We need to separate out the information on the editor and the paper. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2009 (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.