Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eagle (newspaper)

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The result was Withdrawn. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle (newspaper)[edit]

Unnotable local newspaper, which is actually named The Bryan College Station Eagle. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the Handbook of Texas - The Eagle became a daily in 1913. Bhaktivinode (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but what has that to do with whether it is notable? The paper itself calls itself by both names, but The Bryan College Station Eagle is what it uses on its website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong keep~~ Notable Texas newspaper. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007, it would be helpful if this article could be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bhaktivinode, you had not edited this article before Collectonian nominated this article for deletion. How on earth could there be any conflict of interest here? I suggest you strike your comments, which appear to be made in bad faith. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your concern for Collectonian. Also, I appreciate the consistant presence the two of you have had on my talk page for the past two years. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was mentioned in the handbook of Texas. Does that handbook list every single newspaper in the state though? It doesn't have a large circulation. Is every newspaper on the planet notable, or just the ones with a large circulation? There should be a set limit. I doubt you'll find newspapers giving third party coverage to each other, so that notable guideline would make no sense. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it pretty much does mention a town's local paper in the city history articles where there is one. It doesn't, however, have articles on every paper, just the most notable ones. Note that there is no article for The Eagle at all, while there are some for many other papers in Texas, even a student paper[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:CSB. A regional paper is notable and of service to the people in its area. That a Texas newspaper that has managed to continue operating for almost 100 years may not be notable to someone in another state or country does not remove its notability. [2] & [3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not applicable here at all. Please actually show notability for this paper (and it is not a regional paper, its a local paper). Shall we also have articles for local power companies little monthly magazines? Sales papers that are shoved in people's mailboxes every week? Etc? Usefulness and being of service has nothing to do with notability. The paper is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be so dismissive of my opinion, as systemic bias is a real threat to the improvement of Wiki as an encyclopedia with a world-wide readership. We are not talking about power company mailers or sales brochures, and if articles are written on such, they will be dealt with at that time. We are speaking HERE about a paper that was founded as a weekly in 1889 and became a daily in 1913. It is reasonable to expect that this may have had some historical import as Texas expanded and grew over the next 120 years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources about them, yes. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Reliable independent sources establish notability, and at least one has been mentioned already. I find it hard to believe that none of these would be an appropriate source. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The newspaper's circulation is very low, and it has won no awards. I don't think this meets the Notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The expansion, most prominently the awards won, appears to meet the notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Schmidt's expansion. Clearly stated notablility and verified by multiple reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 20:53, 13 February 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.