Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem-News.com

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salem-News.com[edit]

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

Questionable encyclopedic fit under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, which is also mirrored in this essay on the notability of news sites. It's effectively a blog of questionable merit (and design).

Note there was a discussion about the redirect of salem-news.com. That's tangential to the content of this site, however, so the whole thing is a little confusing. Anyhow, see the history, note the the first edit was this site of dubious importance- before it was turned into a redirect to another region.

So, what this boils down to is we need a community consensus for the encyclopedic fit of this news site/blog. The strongest claim is edit summary that (site owner and author) Tim King is notable and "award winning", though I can't determine what those awards are. The next claim can be seen by scrolling through the vast list of staff, some of who have some level of awards or notability. I haven't been able to find any substantial awards, nor have I found cases of salem-news.com being cited in major sources. tedder (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search, lists War Correspondent Tim King's awards "holds awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing from The Associated Press the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, the Oregon Confederation of Motorcycle Clubs, Electronic Media Association and The Red Cross In a personal capacity" If the Huffington Post has a wikipedia article, and it does not even have the worldwide reporting that Salem-News.com has provided since 2004. DavidMinhPham (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing a Google search reveals this phrase is from King's website itself, and mirrored in a few other places, none of which appear to be reliable sources. If King were notable, it's possible his website would be notable but I'm not coming up with any Independent, Reliable and Third-Party sources on Salem-News or King. Also "Worldwide reporting" is not a criterion for the notability of news sources, so comparison to the Huffington Post, which is clearly notable, is a "other stuff exists" argument. Can you come up with any independent, reliable, third-party sources showing that Salem-news is notable or that cites the notable awards (bearing in mind that awards are only one aspect of notability, per these guidelines) won by King or the website? Examples of notable journalism awards are here. Valfontis (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation Just like any article that is on wikipedia, give it some time to develop, a HELP tag would help for wikipedia community to join in and add to the article. Why is there such rush to delete. As any Internet News Media they all start with a readership and grows over time, just like Huffington Post, just to name one. There are a few more growing Internet News Media websites that have gathered alot of news that readers from around the world are interested in such as Salem-News.com. Simply look through the website and the writers that are listed as you can see that it is a newsworthy Internet News Media website that has content not a talk forum. DavidMinhPham (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to help grow or promote anybody's website. If the website is notable now, please expand the article with cited neutrally worded information. If sources do not exist, then we don't need an article on the website until such time as the website becomes notable. Please read about notability and offer arguments based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines about why this article should not be deleted. You might want to read about Wikipedia's deletion process also. Valfontis (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis, When did I write above that we should PROMOTE a website ?(refer: "Wikipedia is not here to help grow or promote anybody's website") Is Salem-News.com selling items on their website ? I said "give it some time to develop, a HELP tag would help for wikipedia community to join in and add to the article." I have read the wikipedia rules and understand them very well, if I do not I always ask for help of other members or I research the rules to understand them. DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the website Islammattersnow.com, that has verified the information about Tim King and Salem-News.com and posted it on their website: http://www.islammattersnow.com/islammattersnow.com/Tim_King_SalemNews.html DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party News interview of Tim King posted on youtube: [1]DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from what I can see, this is not a "newspaper", in the traditional sense, but a blog-style news website run by two people who used to be journalists elsewhere. That's fine, not really relevant to this discussion but I think we should be clear about what the website is - basically a more involved blog from two people who might have more substantive journalism credentials than your usual bloggers. I'm not sure the islammattersnow.com site could be considered an independent reliable source - it looks to be either owned by a group which includes the Salem-News "team" or at least has very close ties to the Salem-News "team" (essentially, their blog just re-posts stuff written by Salem-News). Either way, one article that mirrors content from the site cannot possibly be considered "significant coverage" enough to pass muster. That youtube video is from "Aldin Entertainment" - the group that publishes islammattersnow.com (or is a subsidiary thereof). Essentially, those sources are both very closely connected to the subject (and are from the same people), as far as I can see, and thus really couldn't be considered independent. On that basis, the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I'm concerned. But I'm happy to consider any evidence to the contrary that other editors might have. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I live 45 minutes south of the city where this site is based. I've never heard of it before, never seen reference to it before in either my local paper or the state newspaper of record, never encountered a reference to it anywhere. Which doesn't mean much, other than to emphasize that this is NOT a huge news entity. In fact, if I may be so bold, I call bullshit on the assertion that there are over 100 employees of this website. There are no way that a few internet ads by local tattoo parlors, etc., would cover the expenses of more than 1 or 2 employees, at best. So: a little verifiability please. Which means, a little sourcing, please. Looks like a GNG failure on the face of it, but I'll stand aside. As an aside, I'm pleased to have learned of the site and will bookmark it and read it for a few days for my own edification. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even notice that before. 104+! Sorry, but that's total rubbish. The "Director" Tim King has his direct line on the site and there's only a mention of him and the co-founder as actual "staff". The other "98 staff" (still not sure how we get to 104) are freelance writers from around the world from whom the subject site has agreed to occasionally take some work. They are not "staff" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy from Australia, for example, is a freelance travel writer. He would just as happily sell his work to me (I imagine), for the right price. Suggesting he is an employee of the subject is patently untrue. Am going to go ahead and edit that info-box. Find me a source that says they have any more than two actual employees and we can go from there. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an eminently reasonable edit. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched carefully and I cannot find any reliable sources that mention the Kings or their website. The only mention I can find of any awards won by King (I can't find any reference to awards won by the website) is King's website itself or what appear to be self-penned bios for reprints of his Salem-news pieces. (And these are all minor local awards, even the AP ones.) In fact, most google hits one gets on "Tim King +Salem +Oregon" are from Salem-news itself. There appears to have been a pretty concerted effort at self-promotion by the Kings but nobody else is writing about them. It should also be noted that although the website is based in Salem, Oregon, it is not really a Salem news source, and it appears the website's mission has changed from when it was initally named salem-news. It is probably hard to get coverage of your website if it covers unpopular or fringe views as it appears Salem-news is doing, but until the website is notable enough to be covered by other notable websites (which are also articles about the website, not articles reprinted from the website) it does not belong on Wikipedia. Valfontis (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My personal preference is that Wikipedia would have a brief entry on a site like this, but that preference is not supported by policy. The various arguments for deletion above are compelling. -Pete (talk) 15:43, 9 October 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.