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 keep. BigDom 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. I am unable to find significant coverage of this alternative newspaper in third party sources. PROD was contested with the circular reasoning of “hard to find coverage of papers in other papers, can itself be used as a reliable source”. Onthegogo (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, it is circular. This is not an OSE argument but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Monthly for a similar discussion, especially the comments by Aboutmovies and Oakshade. This is just a comment, please don't take this as an argument or !vote about the notability of Vancouver Voice, I plan to do more research before deciding. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator of the article. It is very hard to find lots of media sources about another media outlet. Newspapers hate mentioning their competition, so I consider a sign of adequate notability and verifiability that this paper did garner a description at launch in the region's paper of record, The Oregonian. In other words, so there are sources. This is the only alt weekly for Washington state's fourth largest municipality, and meets the general notability guideline. I do think the unreferenced parts about the different sections/columns needs to be removed or scaled back, since they're not verified. I'm going to do that now. Steven Walling 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: So it looks like the Oregonian link is suffering from the notorious case of link rot that is the O-vanish. Let's try to dig it up, since it will show that the article's subject got an exclusive little piece that I think is sufficient to prove general notability. Steven Walling 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access via the public library to the O archives from 1987 on. Drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like me to look up any stories. Valfontis (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As mentioned above, it's not likely one will find coverage of a newspaper in another media outlet. However, the coverage by the Voice has been mentioned by The Oregonian, The Columbian (both these articles mention that investigation by the VV is what prompted official action), National Book Awards, The Vancouver branch of the NAACP, Metro (see Metro (Oregon regional government)), The Washington State Conservation Commission, The Portland Coalition Against Hate Crimes, Washington State University, The Vancouver Symphony, Prison Legal News, and the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO. VV is also a member of the Vancouver Downtown Association, and the Alternative Weekly Network. This is an established (4.5 years) alternative newsweekly that is a professional media outlet, and is being treated as such by other professional media outlets and organizations, not some fly-by-night photocopied zine. Valfontis (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Valfontis; enough evidence that this paper is referenced by other reliable sources to pass WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals#4. Some of the text of the "History" section of the article appears to be close to text on the "About the Vancouver Voice" page[1] at the paper's website; this should be examined and revised to avoid any WP:COPYVIO concerns.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources in the article and the sources provided in this discussion. There is no doubt this passes WP:GNG. —SW— ^express 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per points made by Valfontis, Steven Walling. (As a side note, the policy behind the notability guideline is verifiability. In the case of a media outlet, its own existence does offer a great deal of verifiable information (without circularity): for instance, circulation figures provided in a newspaper's masthead are audited, and its coverage may be verified by visiting a local library.) But the best argument for keeping is the one already made: significant coverage in the metro area's paper of record is sufficient for the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec with closure of AfD)Delete  Please look at copyvio issues vs. vanvoice.com/about-voice.  Trove.nla.gov.au does not list the paper.  Worldcat is aware of a "Vancouver Voice", but there is a previous "Vancouver Voice" mentioned here that printed from 1992 to 1999, and the reference at WorldCat shows no years when it was published, and no ISSN number.  I searched for "archive" on the paper's website without seeing that there is any searchable material that would offer "enduring notability".  The reference from msnbc is evidence of a functioning newspaper, but if this is a functioning newspaper, why is there nothing more available about it and there may be a copyvio for what we currently have, with sourcing problems as well as dead links for the rest.  Given a choice between this article and no article in the encyclopedia, I'd say no article.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2011 (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.