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. It is a clear outcome in this case.

The keep !votes are almost entirely from new accounts located in the relevant local area. It is also reasonable to believe that at least some of those !votes were procured by an "email" referred to by one of them. Even so, these keep !votes universally fail to support the inclusion of the article by reference to accepted inclusion standards such as WP:N and WP:GNG. The remaining keeps (eg MichaelQSchmidt) do, but it is clear that the view that the subject has received significant coverage does not have consensus. The delete !voters have acknowledged the existence of some sources - in particular coverage of the legal action and one other article in "Eastside City Arts" - but have formed the view that the coverage is not significant. That view has a clear consensus support by reference to accepted inclusion standards. Mkativerata ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Eastside Sun

Eastside Sun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log) • Afd statistics

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

Very low on reliable sources to show notability. The website shows a current issue, despite the previous notice that publication was ceasing. I'd say, unless we can find sourcing that explains exactly what the heck is going on with this paper, we shouldn't be covering it. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public ( talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public ( talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment "whats going on" isn't the concern. The concern is reliable sources showing this newspaper meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion ( WP:GNG). Many newspapers are notable and newspapers often have public interest, but sources are still needed to substantiate whether or not they have gained notice. I'm not seeing them. It's not clear this is more than a small local paper of the same kind as many other non-notable small local papers. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection..... nor a directory nor a medium for advertizing etc. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep and improve/source, as the text of the second source does assert notability ("the sometimes-controversial monthly publication") -- should be easy enough to find some coverage. -- rahaeli ( talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep We'd hate to lose the article about our town's newspaper from Wikipedia. But to be fair, Wikipedia's description of The Eastside Sun has been incorrect for nearly a year and the person(s) that put the incorrect information in the entry then LOCKED the info so that anyone reading it would be led to believe the newspaper was out of print and the correct information couldn't be inserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.97.106 ( talk) 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — 68.178.97.106 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I find it interesting that a newspaper with as many detractors as The Eastside Sun seems to have (I live in Kirkland) would fall under the eye of SarekOfVulcan. Since June of last year this fellow has repeatedly trimmed down this article, inserted erroneous information and finally locked the article. Seems like there may be something petty and personal going on here that Wikipedia should strive to rise above. My name is Ted Warnock and I approved this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.142.41 ( talk) 22:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — 64.134.142.41 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep Plenty of sources discussing dispute with City of Kirkland and accusations of civil rights violations [1]. That the paper continues to be published is obvious [2] and easily verified. Makes me wonder why there is so much antagonism to the article and making its contents accurate. Troubling. PicodeGato ( talk) 23:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user ChildOfMidnight ( talk · contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight. Brianhe ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Something funny going on I got this email too about Wikipedia trying to delete The Eastside Sun article as well as keeping incorrect information about the Sun being out-of-business. Using incorrect article info to destroy a business does seem below Wikipedia's standards BUT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DELETE ANYTHING THEY WANT SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE WEBSITE.

  Is SarekOFVulcan a shill for an enemy of The Sun newspaper? Probably. Looking through 'History' for the article shows a surprising number of entries by him/her. But again THAT'S HIS RIGHT. No one should take ANYTHING in Wikipedia to be the truth since it can be changed by anyone.

  oth for and against, the actions of this newspaper.

  Since it's been publishing for 5 years and - with the exception of a 3 or 4 month hiatus - has been distributed throughout Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Woodinville (that I know of) it certainly isn't out of business or defunct. I pick it up at George's the first of every month.

  So, if you keep it, here are my suggested changes:

  • Remove 'The Eastside Sun was' and replace it with 'The Eastside Sun is'
  • Remove The Eastside Sun from 'Defunct Newspapers'
  • Remove sidebar notation about The Eastside Sun ceasing publication
  • ADD there is an ongoing federal investigation into civil rights violations (my daughter was interviewed).
• IF Sarek won't allow these changes I suggest you delete the entire article since lying about this company's very existence is below Wikipedia's standards and obviously meant to hurt the newspaper financially. Who would buy advertising in a defunct publication as Wikipedia states?

  I don't know how to sign this so it must go in as unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep I have to agree with the people before me, The Eastside Sun appears to be much more than a simple small town newspaper. there are lots of comments and sources both for and against this publication. Like PicodeGato above, I find the handling of this article very troubling. When 2 or 3 registered Wikipedia editors are responsible for 40 or 50 changes, deletions and blocks I think we need to look at those editors and not only the object of the article. In repnse to rahaeli at top, I looked back in history a couple of years and there was a LOT more sourced information, but it has been winnowed down by these same 3 editors. Troubling indeed. EvergreenDuck ( talk) 00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— EvergreenDuck ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• This story covers the publisher and the paper as well [3]. PicodeGato ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The previous comment belongs to a sockpuppet of banned user ChildOfMidnight ( talk · contribs). User pages are tagged PicodeGato-> — Freakshownerd -> ChildOfMidnight. Brianhe ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Well at least Wikipedia has part of the correct information on this newspaper. they speak of it in present tense but still have the right hand column showing it as having "ceased" publication. I noticed that SarekOfVulcan has been the one fighting to keep the erroneous information in place. I wonder why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 ( talk • contribs) — 184.78.226.208 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Local monthly periodicals are not especially notable, and this one lack sources to show notability. In fact, it has very little in the way of verifiable sources in the first place, and those sources are contradictory. Since we have had repeated issues with this article that are made worse by the lack of verifiable information, the fact that notability is not shown means it should be deleted. I am open to being convinced to keep by better quality sources, however. — Gavia immer ( talk) 07:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Sarek. This newspaper isn't worth all the hassles it bring with it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete no significant coverage of this newspaper. Goodvac ( talk) 07:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Paper is too local and too obscure to be notable, under the WP:N criteria, as evidenced by the lack of non-trivial reliable sources. The large amount of canvassing of friends and associates is not helping the article's case.-- resident (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable local newspaper with no significant independent coverage or recognition and no evidence of historical notability. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, we have plenty of articles on local weekly and monthly papers. I see no reason to start deleting them all. If we had a guideline with respect to circulation it would be a good bright-line for local newspapers. Lacking that, newspapers typically don't report on their competitors, so lack of sources is in no way surprising and I don't think non-notability can be assumed from this. Yworo ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yworo, can you give me a source for the paper's founding in July 2006? If we can't even source that, how can we have an article?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • No, therefore changing my !vote immediately below.
      • An article dated October 28, 2009 refers to it as the "three-year-old monthly Eastside Sun...", [4] so even without an exact founding date, as a founding year 2006 seems reasonable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Kirkland, Washington. There are sufficient sources for that. Yworo ( talk) 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete As above delete reasons Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 22:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not enough good sources to warrant inclusion. The Eskimo ( talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete given that basic facts cannot, apparently, be established. Drmies ( talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge: It is a local entertainment paper, and does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article. As it stands now, I could see it being merged into Kirkland, Washington as Yworo suggested. Susan118 ^talk 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as noted above, this newspaper is essentially a local paper with nothing to make it stand out from thousands of similar papers. There's no sourcing, none really available, and the paper itself is small and doesn't seem to be notable on its own. A mention in the Kirkland, Washington article would be appropriate, but beyond that it's not really article material. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as noted above, the same editors that keep trying to delete this article (Sarek, Susan118, Toy Fox, etc) are the same people who - according to History - kept placing incorrect info and locking this article. The rash of 'Delete' comments above only goes to show the organized effort to destroy this newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenDuck ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC) — EvergreenDuck ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, user expressed a separate "keep" opinion above. reply

Curses! He's blown our cover, guys. Time to head back to the Courier offices and come up with a new plan to destroy the Sun (evil rubbing of hands) The Eskimo ( talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I guess this would be funny if it were not so close to the truth. Disliking the editorial content of The Sun is not sufficient reason to delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 ( talk • contribs)

• Well, let me say this: I've never seen the Eastside Sun in real life; my work on the article was always to deal with vandalism and incorrect additions; I couldn't give a flying goddamn about it other than that. So do me a favour and make accusations someplace else, preferably with some semblance of proof before you do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep While I am certain Gavia immer and SarekOfVulcan will cross out this vote, I need to vote to keep regardless. Until Wikipedia establishes a clear 'cut-off-point' of what is a large enough newspaper for Wikipedia to include, then all newspapers must be included. Or none. Beware the slippery slope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.248.18 ( talk) 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC) — 98.203.248.18 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Sidenote Re: the Delete vote by Beyond My Ken. this editor has several AKA's... Ed Fitzgerald and H Debussy-Jones under which it seems he repeatedly punitively edited this article. Is there something personal going on between this newspaper and the editors listed repeatedly in the history of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.248.18 ( talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Those names are called SOCKPUPPETS, it allows Beyond My Ken to try and influence discussions by making it appear other people share his viewpoint. Very old trick

• Sure he does. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• (Comment added after closing) Just noticed these comments. Please see this for my backstory. My editing of the article was in no way "punitive", and in fact served to improve it considerably. My "delete" !vote was a recognition that, even though considerable time had past, the subject's notability had still not been established. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep We have plenty of articles about local newspapers. Why is this one being singled out?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 ( talk • contribs) User expressed a separate keep opinion above

This question is exactly covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF on the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In a nutshell each article should stand on its own merit. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failure to make WP:NOTABILITY. If the Federal civil rights suit [5] turns out to be notable, it should be added to the Kirkland media section. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The publication seems to be purely local in scope, and I do not think that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. There does not seem to be much independent writing about this publication except for the coverage of a lawsuit it is involved in, and that coverage is also purely local in scope and does not rise above the level of ordinary daily local news. If no one else outside the Kirkland, Washington area has seen fit to write in any depth about the Eastside Sun, there is no reason for Wikipedia to be the first. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  Wow. This AFD has certainly attracted a large number of anon IPs. And while not trying to WP:OSE, I do have to grant there are a number of articles on Wikipedia about many small "local" newspapers which have not themselves received worldwide, nationwide, or even statewide notice in other publications. The IPs seem to be aruing that by those existing precedents we might've acknowledged that this one could belong here as well. But as seems this one might go, we will need to prepare ourselves for other similarly argued deletions for these other less-than-major publications. It might be a good idea to propose a modification to WP:NNEWSPAPER to stress that in the lack of wider independent coverage of the specific publication, there must be some minimal requirement for circulation in order to be worthy of inclusion herein. We could then simply speedy per WP:TOOSMALL these other articles about these other small papers and not even worry about the controversy of an AFD and a deluge of anon IPs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  Schmidt, glad you brought WP:NNEWSPAPER to my attention. The primary criterion listed there is that "Periodicals should have at a minimum an ISSN..." However, Washington's Eastside Sun does not show up in this OCLC search (though the LA Eastside Sun does) and fails the notability criterion: [6]. — Brianhe ( talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  Well, to be fair, it is as yet only a proposed guideline... but as it IS under discussion, I think that for newspapers that are not themselves covered by their competition, adding a caveat about a required minimum circulation, would be of great use in quickly ridding Wikipedia of a great number of useless articles on small and forgettable newspapers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete As long as you delete Kirkland Reporter, Seattle Weekly, Stranger etc. All politics is local and so is news. Otherwise...
• Keep thanks for being fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 ( talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) User expressed a separate keep opinion above reply
• Well... this one sure has a colorful edit history... that's for sure. But my thought would be to Keep as this article seems properly sourced, and per existing precedent for smaller newspapers, it's reasonable to have an article on this one... even if it is in Kirkland, Washington and not one of the BIG old boys in New York or Chicago... and really, this is not exactly some church gazette. Is it worth the hassle to patrol this article? Or patrol any article? I would think yes, and if there are problems with anon IPs messing with the article, it would certainly be prudent to protect it... but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? As for a comment above about it not having "historical significance", as its "history" is rather recent, determining "historical" might best be left to next decade's editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• What do you feel are the sources that actually discuss the newspaper, as compared to the sources that discuss the owner's rather dodgy civil rights suit claims? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Eastside City Arts And I'm not wishing to be argumentative in this rather bitter AFD, but do you have any source that supports your use of the term "dodgy", or is that only a personal expression? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• That appears to be more focused on the owner again. Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, it makes sense that someone might interview a newpaper's publisher, and so in answering your posed question, the article does contain information about the paper that does not deal with the lawsuit. I would be fine if the two sentences dealing with the publisher's lawsuit were removed from the article, as WP:GNG instructs that the topic being sourced (IE: the nespaper) does not have to be the main focus of a source, and there is information in the sources about his suit that can be used to expand and cite the article without ever mentioning that suit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• We obviously have different definitions of notability. Fair enough, cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• You asked if something covered the newspaper in any manner other than the lawsuit... a reasonable request... and I replied. And while you might term the lawsuit itself as "dodgy", the article is not (or should not) be about the lawsuit. So with that caveat in mind, we are allowed to seek information to source the article about a newspaper in what sources that may be available... and even though some of the references do deal with a lawsuit, we might per policy (and all the anon IPs herein notwithstanding), find other pieces of information about the newspaper in such articles. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• You have to forgive Tony when he uses words like 'dodgy', it seems he'd rather censor than admit there are views out there that conflict with his own. Sad that we'll lose articles that he doesn't like or agree with, but that's what makes Wikipedia interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 ( talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep I find it interesting that 4 of the most vitriolic opponents of this publication are responsible for 44 out of the last 100 edits on this article. Tony Fox, Brianhe, SajakOfVulcan and Susan118 (all voting 'Delete and SajakOfVulcan making the motion to Delete). I have to wonder what about this publication scares them so much. Somebody has orders to throw a monkey wrench in this publication's gears. Perhaps someone is friends with the subject of one of this newspaper's editorials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.171.49 ( talk) 04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 168.103.171.49 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Do you have anything to say about the merits of the article? — Brianhe ( talk) 05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Those four editors who you think are "scared" of the publication, and taking "orders" to get it deleted, are highly respected, and average over 15,000 edits between them (Susan pulls that number down a bit with a measly 2,000+. Of course, she hasn't been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, like Brianhe, for instance.) And at least two of them are sysops, so please don't accuse people of being involved some sort of conspiracy against the Sun. If you were to read between the lines of the criticism above, you could glean some good suggestions on how to possibly improve the article so it might meet the notability guidelines. The Eskimo ( talk) 19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I voted 'delete' because this article appears, to me, to be about a subject that does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I've never heard of the Eastside Sun, I don't know anyone associated with it, and I've never been anywhere near Kirkland, Washington. There is no conspiracy, and the new users who are convinced that there is one are merely making themselves sound silly. If this is a noteworthy publication, rather than commenting on your conspiracy theories, just link to some of the national-level awards this periodical has won, or articles about its significance in trade journals, and it'll be kept. No amount of silly accusations will keep the article, but a few good sources certainly would. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have to agree that this vendetta appears odd. Why is there so much information in a newspaper serving a community of less than 70,000 people? I know there is nothing we Kirklanders can do to protect our paper from the four editors that appear so adamant to delete it, but I wonder WHY it is so important to them.

I read The Eastside Sun from cover to cover every issue because it is NOT like a small town paper, it picks fights with corrupt police and names worthless city employees and backs it up with evidence and research. Its more like The Shinbone Star than a fishwrapper. I especially take offense at Tony Fox who is working tirelessly to delete this publication because "Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims." Similar claims?? He attacks one newspaper because he's heard something about other lawsuits by other people and he has the mental capabilities to determine that they are exactly the same? Perhaps he could save us money by replacing The Supreme Court. Has he read the depositions and arguments from both sides? Does he know the three city employees? It would be amazing if he did because I live here and I don't. Anyway, I don't have an Wiki-account but my name is Marilynne Reade. BTW FischerQueen, you may feel enough superiority to we serfs to refer to us as Silly People as you did in history:

but at least we have the courtesy to make reasoned arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

After looking at the above comments, it's clear that FisherQueeen stated "No amount of silly accusations will keep the article" [7] ... at no point did she call anyone "Silly people" as you claimed. Please avoid making false accusations, and please don't use personal insults and attacks as you did in your comments about Tony Fox. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the defense, Barek, but I did, in fact, use the edit summary 'silly people.' I think that 'silly' is not a particularly harsh criticism, but I certainly apologize if I hurt this person's feelings. I will revise 'silly people' to 'people who are utterly ignorant of Wikipedia's rules,' which is factually true, if that makes her feel better. I note that the person who objects has, like the other people invited here by some email, not shown any sign that he has yet read the Wikipedia rule we are discussing, or that he is aware that we are discussing the question of whether or not this publication meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. We've all seen this pattern before- an AfD is flooded with non-helpful comments from people who don't understand Wikipedia's rules and think that they are participating in a vote, the AfD discussion is a big confusing mess, and ultimately, the closing admin only looks at the comments which address Wikipedia's rules, ignoring all the rest of the comments. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Very heartfelt apology Susan. Calling people ignorant is SO much better.

What's more is that these people have been involved with conflict over this article over at least a YEAR (it appears from the IP addresses to be the ones who have been arguing on the talk page for at least that long), and have not bothered to read any of WP's rules in that time. Not that I claim to be an expert on them myself, and yes there are a LOT of them, especially for infrequent editors, but the notability one is a biggie that is clearly being ignored.-- Susan118 ^talk 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Working tirelessly, am I? Yes, I've got a vast vendetta against the Eastside Sun, you know, a newspaper that I've never even seen in the wild and which I could care less about. I and the other editors who are being personally attacked by this growing horde of insulting IPs and single-purpose accounts have done nothing more than try to apply Wikipedia's rules and guidelines regarding notability, so kindly shelve your idiotic conspiracy theories, then make some arguments based in Wikipedia's rules as to why this article should exist. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hey, as long as we're talking conspiracy theories and/or vendettas, I think it's worth mentioning that while the rest of us are located around the world, the several "anonymous" IP users who are hurling accusations, are all located in Washington state--most right around the Kirkland area--which raises suspicions, at least in my book. (I may be slacking as far as edits, but I know how to figure that out ;) ) Just thought I would throw that out there. And for the record, I live thousands of miles away from Kirkland, and have never been there; haven't even been on the west coast since I was 12, but sure, I'm conspiring with all these other people to put this little paper out of business. (Incidentally, not having an article on Wikipedia should make no difference to the livelihood of the paper. Not every successful business has, or needs to have, a WP article. There's a lovely restaurant I go to that has excellent happy hour specials that I'd love to write an article for, but you know what---it's not notable, so I don't. And their business has not been destroyed due to a lack of a Wikipedia article-- Susan118 ^talk 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Because this is OUR community's newspaper you are trying to pass judgment on. No one in Duluth cares about the 80,000 people in our city, but we care greatly.

• And this article is on Wikipedia, which has notability guidelines, as well as several content policies such as verifiability and no original research (among others). The discussion should focus on how articles meet or fail to meet site policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a social networking webhost, if you want a community wiki with its own content policies, feel free to create your own website or to setup a wiki at any of the available wiki farms. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Barry, Susan118 had "suspicions" (at least in her book) about why people/IPs were chiming in from the area this publication serves. My answer was to assuage those concerns, NOT to address the topics you discuss.

• Delete - per notability criteria and nom criteria. No significant coverage by reliable sources. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep fighting and I'll turn this car around and no one will see grandma! Hi everyone, I am John Michael Gilday and I publish The Eastside Sun newspaper. First off, what a merry group you all are! Insults, backstabbing, nastiness and open weeping. Reminds me of my first honeymoon.
  

We ARE a small newspaper by any standards - established July 2006.
We ARE controversial.
We ARE embroiled in not one but two lawsuits.
We ARE occasionally A--holes and we've made some enemies.

But in our defense we apply time-honored checks and balances to our editorials. We don't seek the ouster of a public official until their actions rise to the level of inexcusable. We don't seek the termination of a police officer until 3 separate sources swear to his corruption. We sought intermediate steps prior to pursuing the lawsuit. We met with the superior of the guilty parties only to have her lie to our faces. When no action was taken we took action.

Wikipedia is a first-time-ever experiment where anyone can edit anything. It is a resource that every newspaperman on the planet probably uses at one time or another, myself included. I've watched our page over the years and even contributed to it - something I learned later was a no-no. Just today I researched House M.D., A cooking show with Gen Anderson and The HMS Britannic, the sister ship of the Titanic (only to learn we were misspelling it as Britanic). Needless to say, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource.

But this bickering has to stop. Yes, I too find it interesting that a few editors find us so terribly interesting and in need of deletion, but - like being in a crowded bar at closing time - you can make book on the fact we will always attract that one 'special' person who will go on to make our life a living hell...

I've reviewed the edits of all the 'Delete' editors mentioned and we are not the only article they've ever worked on, edited, nominated for deletion or heavily censored. There is no reason to believe there is any vendetta going on, just watching, watching, watching. Day and night, 24/7... watching us. Wow, suddenly I got this chill. Anybody got a Xanax?

In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it. Feel free to contact me to verify this message's authenticity. Our phone number and email can be found on page two of this month's issue available online (www.eastsidesun.com) and at newsstands in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Issaquah (look it up, it's a real city) and Renton.

But knock off the bickering or, I swear to god, I'm coming back there with a switch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

You must be new here. Wikipedia runs on bickering. PhGustaf ( talk) 23:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

As the publisher, you are in a very good position to comment on the only subject that is relevant to this discussion: whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and whether the Eastside Sun has been written about in any depth by other publications. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi FischerQueen. Dang, you are quick, I just finished writing that entry! In this era where every publication is scratching for the same shrinking pool of advertisers, there is no reason why ANY of our competitors should promote The Eastside Sun. We don't mention them and there is no reason for them to mention us. Remember 'All ink is good ink' which is another way of saying if they write about you they give you legitimacy.

Sure, I've had a few interviews over the years re: exploits in SE Asia, Gulf Coast, mideast etc., but The Eastside Sun per se gets very little promotion from our competitors - and that is as it should be. Hope that answers your question. (signed) John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

To the publisher: I should note that it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are covered by a direct competitor. There are other journalism outlets, for example trade journals within the publishing industry, or perhaps your paper has been covered by journalism in other media (TV stations, radio stations, websites) which have provided useful information. Just to expand a bit on the reasoning behind this: Wikipedia strives to have articles which are neutrally written and verifiable and factually accurate. In order to assure that our articles meet all of those standards, the articles need to have information which is referenced to reliable, independent sources. If sources simply do not exist, then Wikipedia has established that it is better to simply not have an article about a subject than it would be to have one which was unbalanced, dubious, or false. Without independent sourcing, and reliable sourcing, it would be impossible to assure that our articles were trustworthy. It's that simple. The concept of notability, as defined at Wikipedia, exists simply to assure that the sources exist with which we can research and write quality articles. No sources = no article. I hope, as the publisher of a work which hopefully itself values verifiability, balance, and truthfulness, you understand why Wikipedia has these standards. -- Jayron 32 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, for some reason I will never completely understand, there is a link to our homepage at the bottom of http://www.tunersandmodels.com/wp/?tag=microkini-beachcom and our web guy says it generates hundreds of hits per day. I don't suppose THAT is what you mean :) (signed) John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• You are correct, in that you do not seem to understand. You seem like a reasonable person. Please, PLEASE take just a moment to read, at the very basic level, the following link: WP:NOTE The Eskimo ( talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• You are correct, in that you do not seem to understand. WOW, passive/aggressive much? Wikipedia is not a forum for snotty comments, petty insults and to try and talk down to people. I don't know nor do I care why you have this need to act in this way Eskimo, but there are other forums for that attitude. The fellow came into this discussion in a humorous vein to try and enlighten us about the publication for which he works - the least we can do is treat him with respect. He even refrained from voting, instead closing with "In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it." Pretty classy, you might take notes. 184.78.226.208 ( talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is not a vote. It is a discussion of whether or not the Eastside Sun meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are listed below. Every single comment on this page which is not about that subect (including this one) will be ignored by the administrator who reads the discussion and decides whether to keep or delete the article-that admin will only give weight to the comments which discuss the evidence that the Eastside Sun is a notable organization. He did not 'refrain from voting.' He made an effort to discuss the question of whether independent sources on this subject exist: he says that they do not, which means that, in the consideration of this discussion, he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• You open your comment with "This is not a vote." and close it with the spectacular assumption that "he will be taken as 'voting' to delete the article"! Your IQ results are in so I guess the only question that remains is 'Have you no shame?'

Putting 'voting' in quotation marks is a way of signifying 'it is not really a vote, but the word is a grammatically simple way of expressing this idea.' I'm sorry that you don't understand what a deletion discussion is, and aren't willing to read the rules for yourself, and don't believe me when I try to explain it... I don't think there is anything more I can do to help you. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

To regular contributors, I am VERY sorry for doing this and will face the music for being disruptive if necessary, but it seems that some on this thread will not take the time to click on a simple link offered over and over again. PLEASE NOTE: At the very core of the issue, THIS is what we are talking about...base your arguments for keep on the following:

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. ^[1]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," ^[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. ^[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. ^[4]
• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. ^[5]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. with apologies The Eskimo ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep You are seriously thinking of deleting one of the funniest periodicals in King County? But the cast of Jersey Shores stays. Another sign of the impending Apocalypse . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.61.142 ( talk) 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC) — 75.146.61.142 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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.