Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gold Bar Reporter

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. -Scottywong | squeal _ 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Bar Reporter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Edited by one of the owners of the paper as a platform for furthering her agenda attacking city officials. The paper itself, putting aside that it's a very small local rag, is not really a newspaper but an attack vehicle. Only reference is to the paper itself. The COI editor, Block, and her attacks have gotten some press coverage in Seattle, but nothing to warrant the inclusion of an article about the paper. Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination starts with a heaping helping of IDONTLIKEIT ("...small local rag...attack vehicle..."). That's interesting but irrelevant. Then it cites a deficiency in the sourcing of the piece ("...only reference is to the paper itself..."). That is also irrelevant to the question of notability — assuming that potential sourcing exists elsewhere in the form of substantial coverage in independently-published sources. Then there is mention of COI editing, which is frowned upon but not formally banned under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finally we get to the meat of the objection, that this editor/website/newspaper have received "some press coverage in Seattle" but that it is insufficient. NOW that's the question of notability... THIS PIECE in the Seattle Times, one of two mainstream daily newspapers of the largest city of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, would certainly seem to go a long way to establishing notabiity. Here's ABC NEWS giving substantial coverage to Block and here publication. Y'know what, I'm done already and that's page 1 of a simple Google search for the exact phrase Gold+Bar+Reporter. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, attack pages can be candidates for speedy deletion. Typically, the attack page attacks its subject, not something else, as here. But the principle is similar in that the only notability of the article is negative. Now, that, of course, doesn't mean that we can't have a wholly negative article, but this so-called newspaper's only notoriety is Anne Block and her attacks on the city of Goldbar's officials. Thus, it has a WP:BLP1E flavor to it, although, of course, it is nominally not about a BLP. Let's say you have a local newspaper in some small town whose articles are only about a weird kind of orange that is grown only in that small town. That might be odd enough to garner attention in bigger cities in the state, but that doesn't make the newspaper notable. That's an extreme analogy, but it illustrates a point. This article is going to be nothing but trouble. As Block criticizes more stuff and sues more people and creates more controversy, she and others will attempt to add that to the article. We can vigilantly keep that stuff out unless it's reported in secondary sources (at the moment, the attack stuff is not cited to secondary sources), but, at bottom, that's all the article is ever going to be about, a small-town "newspaper" started by a crusader. We had an article about Anne K. Block herself that was speedily deleted as an attack page because instead of promoting her (as this article does), it denigrated her, but, if anything, Block is more notable than her paper.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment. You are showing a complete misunderstanding on attack pages. The article is in no way an attack page. It is about a subject that, using your words, is an attack vehicle. An attack page is a page based entirely to attack a subject on wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources out there that just need to be added to the article. RS: [1], [2], [3], Not-So-RS [4]. imo, Notability has been met. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (a) The reliable sources noted above seem to call this a blog not a newspaper (b) All the notability I'm seeing here appears to stem from the a local political scandal, so WP:1E may be a factor (c) since an editor with the same name as the site editor has eddited the article, I've tagged it for COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lomon's sources are fascinating as small town gossip, but from them it appears clear this is not a genuine newspaper and there are considerable BLP concerns about the material in the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gold Bar, Washington, which is clearly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 7 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gold Bar, Washington— and while we're at it, tell the full story. I see no sign that it is independently notable; it's not on the list of newspapers maintained at the Washington State Library. However, it is very important to the ongoing saga of the possible disestablishment of the town, and there are plenty of good sources about that conflict. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A little research shows that this is more complicated. It does seem that the blog (which is how the Herald describes it) is essentially the mouthpiece of Anne Block; the problem is that she has more than one iron in the fire. Besides the fight with the city, she is also trying to get Aaron Reardon recalled. At this point I'm thinking that the notability of her blog is too low and too unfocused to support redirection and merger. That said, our coverage of these issues needs improvement. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we had attacks and edit-wars on articles about Anne Block a few weeks ago, now we are getting the other side of the feud, with an article about her paper edited by her. I think my comment at the WP:REFUND request for one of the Anne Block articles also applies here: "The strong impression given here, in the edit-wars on the deleted article, and by Anne Block being reposted by another single-purpose account within a week of the deletion of Anne K. Block, is that the citizens of Snohomish County want to use Wikipedia as an arena for their local political battle. That is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is for." JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. There's been demonstrated coverage in reliable secondary sources that are national and state-wide in scope, and this coverage is significant, not just WP:ROUTINE. I haven't seen an argument above that challenges the reliability of these sources or the significant coverage guideline. The article should be improved and has serious neutrality issues that need to be addressed, but there's no denying as of now that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and thus should be kept. The founder is probably not notable under WP:BLP1E, but this guideline applies to living people, not organizations. --Batard0 (talk) 06:03, 19 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.