Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Media Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Texas Media Watch[edit]
This page should be delted because the topic is non-notable. Texas Media Watch claims to be a non-partisan watch group. However, the Austin Chronicle, a paper with cirulation of 88,000 [1] and readership of over 250,000 [2] points out that this so-called group appears to consiste of only a single person, Sherry Sylvester. This is supported by the fact that she is the only person ever mentioned as part of the group on their own pages or on any Google produced reference to the site. Speaking of Google, "Texas Media Watch" produces less than 2,000 hits. For a group focused on media and publicity, this is a paltry number of hits. Therefore, the fails a reasonable test for notability. The page was created by a user who wishes to add quotes from them into a NPOV section of Houston Chronicle. Johntex 03:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Texas Media Watch's web site indicates that Ms. Sylvester is an award winning journalist who was once the Political Writer at the San Antonio Express-News. [3]. Some of the Google hits are actual articles from notable newspaper and media outlets in Texas. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First of all, the "organization" (well, website) appears to be defunct. The sole contributor "stepped down" shortly after the 2004 election,[4] and no further newsletters have been published since then. Its claims as an independent, unbiased source should be viewed skeptically, as it was funded by a major Republican operative in Texas (David Hartman). Other than the fact that the writer was a journalist, what makes it significantly different from a blog? --Tabor 04:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to your link (which goes to a fully functioning website BTW), Sylvester wrote "I am stepping down as Director of Texas Media Watch on December 1, 2004, but this project is slated to continue." (emphasis added). I have updated the article to reflect that Sylvester is no longer with the group. Rangerdude 04:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah, TMW said it would continue. Well, I'm just looking at the fact that Sherry Sylvester is the only byline I found on any articles on the site, that she is no longer involved, and that what was once a weekly newsletter has not brought forth a single issue in the 6 months since her resignation. Clearly we'll just have to take TMW's word that it is a vibrant, functioning media criticism organization. --Tabor 04:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of what your original research into the site's editing history indicates, what they publish is what we have to go by. Otherwise you are assuming a status for the organization that it has not announced for itself. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for the purposes of this VfD it is entirely legitimate to look under the covers and see what is really going on. This is basically a defunct blog of minor notability. The article itself can certainly repeat the claim that it will reopen. -Willmcw 04:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Regardless of what your original research into the site's editing history indicates, what they publish is what we have to go by. Otherwise you are assuming a status for the organization that it has not announced for itself. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah, TMW said it would continue. Well, I'm just looking at the fact that Sherry Sylvester is the only byline I found on any articles on the site, that she is no longer involved, and that what was once a weekly newsletter has not brought forth a single issue in the 6 months since her resignation. Clearly we'll just have to take TMW's word that it is a vibrant, functioning media criticism organization. --Tabor 04:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to your link (which goes to a fully functioning website BTW), Sylvester wrote "I am stepping down as Director of Texas Media Watch on December 1, 2004, but this project is slated to continue." (emphasis added). I have updated the article to reflect that Sylvester is no longer with the group. Rangerdude 04:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First of all, the "organization" (well, website) appears to be defunct. The sole contributor "stepped down" shortly after the 2004 election,[4] and no further newsletters have been published since then. Its claims as an independent, unbiased source should be viewed skeptically, as it was funded by a major Republican operative in Texas (David Hartman). Other than the fact that the writer was a journalist, what makes it significantly different from a blog? --Tabor 04:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the VFD process on this article was initiated with no discussion, no comment on the article itself, and only a few minutes after its creation. The editor who proposed this deletion is currently involved in a dispute over using Texas Media Watch (TMW) as a source on the Houston Chronicle article and has inserted several POV comments to disparage TMW there. Based on these reasons, this VfD is IMO premature and inappropriately called. It should also be noted that the article cited by Johntex from the Austin Chronicle as a basis for his VfD (found here for anyone who wants to see it [5]) is a rabidly partisan rant replete with namecalling and attacks on the "hard rightist" columnists published by TMW's parent group, the Lone Star Foundation. It's highly questionable to me whether we should be evaluating the propriety of this article based solely on such a blatantly POV attack piece on the organization. Rangerdude 04:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From what I can tell, this organization is one person writing about what other people have written. Unless that person has had a great influence on the media or people's opinions (something which is not evidenced in the article), I don't see how it is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Xcali 04:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment' The latest posting I can find on their website is from November 2004 stating that Sylvester is stepping aside. The "upcoming events" section of the website is blank. She/They do not seem to be an active concern at the moment. Rangerdude, who created the TMW article, would like to claim this is an issue of bias of some sort, but it is really about a non-notable "group" he wishes to reference in his arguments because he agrees with their (her) point of view. Johntex 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not for us to decide. I stated that this is an issue of bias on your part because the record shows clearly that it is indeed just that. After I used TMW as a source for a very brief quote on the Houston Chronicle page, you attempted to qualify it through disparaging POV language here [6], here [7], and here [8] all based upon a single rabidly partisan opinion diatribe from the Austin Chronicle located here [9]. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rather than a lengthy explanation of the bias you have added to the Houston Chronicle article - I will simply point out that your above staement has no bearing on whether Texas Media Watch is worthy of an article. Johntex 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your POV edits speak for themself, Johntex, as do my attempts to restore neutrality following them. Whether you believe so or not, they have direct bearing on this VfD process since your case for removing this article is premised entirely upon the same partisan rant from the Austin Chronicle that you were attempting to insert with POV commentary into the Houston Chronicle article. Furthermore, since I created and proposed the TMW article as an alternative for the placement of your and Katefan's passages about TMW and Sylvester, which did not belong in the middle of the Houston Chronicle article where you placed them, the dispute on Houston Chronicle is a directly relevant reason in favor of retaining the TMW article. Rangerdude 05:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have produced zero evidence to counter the Austin Chronicle's claim that it was a "one-woman" shop. (Even liberal publications are right sometimes - and the Austin Chronicle appears to be right this time, as evidenced by the fact that no one but her has ever appeared in association with the website, and the fact that the website has not been updated once in the 6 months since her departure). Furthermore, you continue to ignore the compelling evidence that her web site gets low Google hits, as I pointed out in my VfD nomination. Do you have anything to say that is on topic here? Johntex 05:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To the contrary. The fact that it is operated by the Lone Star Foundation indicates that it was more than a "one woman" shop. Nor did the Austin Chronicle ever establish that it was - they merely speculated that it was in a rabidly partisan editorial piece of suspect credibility in its own right. Nor is your unscientific google survey "compelling evidence" by any reasonable measure. Do you have anything to say that legitimately justifies this article's deletion beyond your own bias against what the group said about the Chronicle? Rangerdude 06:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have produced zero evidence to counter the Austin Chronicle's claim that it was a "one-woman" shop. (Even liberal publications are right sometimes - and the Austin Chronicle appears to be right this time, as evidenced by the fact that no one but her has ever appeared in association with the website, and the fact that the website has not been updated once in the 6 months since her departure). Furthermore, you continue to ignore the compelling evidence that her web site gets low Google hits, as I pointed out in my VfD nomination. Do you have anything to say that is on topic here? Johntex 05:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your POV edits speak for themself, Johntex, as do my attempts to restore neutrality following them. Whether you believe so or not, they have direct bearing on this VfD process since your case for removing this article is premised entirely upon the same partisan rant from the Austin Chronicle that you were attempting to insert with POV commentary into the Houston Chronicle article. Furthermore, since I created and proposed the TMW article as an alternative for the placement of your and Katefan's passages about TMW and Sylvester, which did not belong in the middle of the Houston Chronicle article where you placed them, the dispute on Houston Chronicle is a directly relevant reason in favor of retaining the TMW article. Rangerdude 05:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rather than a lengthy explanation of the bias you have added to the Houston Chronicle article - I will simply point out that your above staement has no bearing on whether Texas Media Watch is worthy of an article. Johntex 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not for us to decide. I stated that this is an issue of bias on your part because the record shows clearly that it is indeed just that. After I used TMW as a source for a very brief quote on the Houston Chronicle page, you attempted to qualify it through disparaging POV language here [6], here [7], and here [8] all based upon a single rabidly partisan opinion diatribe from the Austin Chronicle located here [9]. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment' The latest posting I can find on their website is from November 2004 stating that Sylvester is stepping aside. The "upcoming events" section of the website is blank. She/They do not seem to be an active concern at the moment. Rangerdude, who created the TMW article, would like to claim this is an issue of bias of some sort, but it is really about a non-notable "group" he wishes to reference in his arguments because he agrees with their (her) point of view. Johntex 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Force10 05:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, defunct minor blog. -Willmcw 05:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Make that a "defunct, minor, short-lived (two years) blog. Per Simon Cursitor, if anyone wants to redirect the info to Sherry Sylvester that might not be bad either. Sylvester is apparently a journalist-turned-Communications Director who is mentioned in the minimally-verifiable blogs of others.[10] It sounds like she'll be a spokesperson for an upcoming gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey. There may be enough verifiable information to make a biography. -Willmcw 07:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable blog. U$er 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: is Ms.Sylvester worthy of an entry ? If so, can this not be rewritten around her, with context of her award-winning journalism, and a redirect posted from a TMW title ? --Simon Cursitor 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As author of the original, I would not object to a redirect to an article on Sylvester in its place. Rangerdude 07:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is an intriguing idea. However, she still does not seem that notable. 571 Google hits, assuming they are all for the same person. [11] Johntex 07:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:BIO google hits are not a criterion for establishing or refuting significance. Circulation figures, however, are and the minimum threshold is 5,000. Sylvester was the political reporter at the San Antonio Express News - a major daily paper with circulation in the hundreds of thousands. That alone is sufficient. Rangerdude 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThat is incorrect. WP:BIO does not say google hits are not a criterion for establishing/refuting significance. To the contrary, WP:BIO specifically mentions checking Google as an alternative test. Please read the page you are citing. Johntex 21:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO: "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include...google test." This does not in any way espouse, establish, sanction, or give credibility to a google test. Following the google test link, one immediately finds that (1) unlike WP:BIO, it is NOT an official wikipedia guideline and (2) substantial reason exists to question its accuracy including a "google bias" that openly concedes its accuracy problems, issues pertaining to its validity, and notice that other search engines may be more accurate and have a wider sample of sites. Rangerdude 21:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:POL - the definition of a guideline is "informal rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". Simply put, you are elevating a Wikipedia guideline to a level of canon that it simply does not enjoy. It is a fact that Google tests are allowed as an indication of notability. It is also a fact that no one is forced to use them. It is also a fact that you have to consider what you are Googling when interpreting the results. Common sense is that a topic relating to the media in the US would be expected to get a lot of media hits. Therefore, a low Google hit rate is relevant here, and allowed by Wikipedia. By the way, if Google searches are so bad, why have you (in just the past 24 hours) cited them several times when you felt they supported your view? Johntex 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I have repeatedly noted that WP:BIO is a guideline, albeit a formal wikipedia guideline. That may not be an official policy, but it is a step below an official policy and many steps above your silly "google test" which aren't official for anything and have multiple disclaimers of their own warning about the dangers of using them as a determinant. Rangerdude 22:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:POL - the definition of a guideline is "informal rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". Simply put, you are elevating a Wikipedia guideline to a level of canon that it simply does not enjoy. It is a fact that Google tests are allowed as an indication of notability. It is also a fact that no one is forced to use them. It is also a fact that you have to consider what you are Googling when interpreting the results. Common sense is that a topic relating to the media in the US would be expected to get a lot of media hits. Therefore, a low Google hit rate is relevant here, and allowed by Wikipedia. By the way, if Google searches are so bad, why have you (in just the past 24 hours) cited them several times when you felt they supported your view? Johntex 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO: "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include...google test." This does not in any way espouse, establish, sanction, or give credibility to a google test. Following the google test link, one immediately finds that (1) unlike WP:BIO, it is NOT an official wikipedia guideline and (2) substantial reason exists to question its accuracy including a "google bias" that openly concedes its accuracy problems, issues pertaining to its validity, and notice that other search engines may be more accurate and have a wider sample of sites. Rangerdude 21:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThat is incorrect. WP:BIO does not say google hits are not a criterion for establishing/refuting significance. To the contrary, WP:BIO specifically mentions checking Google as an alternative test. Please read the page you are citing. Johntex 21:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:BIO google hits are not a criterion for establishing or refuting significance. Circulation figures, however, are and the minimum threshold is 5,000. Sylvester was the political reporter at the San Antonio Express News - a major daily paper with circulation in the hundreds of thousands. That alone is sufficient. Rangerdude 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is an intriguing idea. However, she still does not seem that notable. 571 Google hits, assuming they are all for the same person. [11] Johntex 07:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As author of the original, I would not object to a redirect to an article on Sylvester in its place. Rangerdude 07:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, being used to make political points, non-notable. RickK 19:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with RickK --Neigel von Teighen 22:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.