Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Daily

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 after almost a month, defaulting to keep. Michig (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Daily

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

no indication that this was ever a notable paper. Perhaps it can become a redirect to The Daily News (Palo Alto), with any content merged, but im not sure if that paper is notable either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete It's not only non-notable, it's non-verified; I could not find confirmation that a paper by this name even exists. The "official link" at the article goes nowhere. A Google search for San Francisco Daily Post finds the Palo Alto Daily Post instead. If a redirect is contemplated, it should be to the Palo Alto Daily Post, which has the same owners and the same address - not to The Daily News (Palo Alto) which has a different owner. At least the Palo Alto Daily Post has an independent reference or two. The Daily News (Palo Alto) seems to be entirely self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to the Yellow Pages directory. No notability claimed or referenced. --
talk) 22:13, 16 November 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, -- Cheers,

Huntley 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

keep The San Francisco Press Club source is not a reader blog, but apparently a reliable industry source. To my surprise, I see it was present when the article was nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The San Francisco PENINSULA Press Club is not a newspaper or news source, but a "professional journalism organization serving the greater Bay Area". As an "organization" it may be reporting about one of its own members and thus not be independent. But even if that one reference (announcing the launch of the paper in 2006) is accepted, a single reference is not sufficient for notability. And the lack of any current references, or even a current Google page, suggests that the paper did not last long enough to become notable or significant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 14:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. A couple more references in reliable sources about this paper: in 2006
New York Sun reported on the founding of the Palo Alto Daily Post, it mentioned that "Messrs. Pavelich and Price also own a small neighborhood daily in San Francisco." "Heresy in Silicon Valley: Traditional Newspaper Launches". Archive.org stored a number of copies of the official website for the SF Daily[1], mostly from about 2007-2008, such as this one [2], which uses the names Daily and Daily Post interchangeably. Later versions of the website don't seem to have any content, and it leaves one unclear about whether the San Francisco paper continued to exist beyond the founding of the Palo Alto paper. The 2010 New York Times article about the Palo Alto paper doesn't mention the San Francisco paper.[3] I conclude that the San Francisco paper was notable enough. I might be tempted to support a merge and redirect to Palo Alto Daily Post, given the interrelated ownership and history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The paper was real and existed, and had a high enough circulation to be notable. It's not just a blog. The article meets several notability standards such as
WP:NEWSPAPER --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, but neither of those links is a notability standard - or even relevant to this discussion. The notability standard for a publication is

WP:GNG. We have not found any significant coverage; in fact all we've been able to confirm is that the paper existed, perhaps briefly. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Another source (from HighBeam): in a December 3, 2007 piece, a
Long Beach Press-Telegram columnist complimented the San Francisco Daily for obtaining and reporting the salaries of highly-paid public employees, viewing this as a significant victory for the public's "right to know" since the Palo Alto Daily News had failed in an effort, a few years earlier, to obtain similar information.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:03, 27 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per citations of Arxiloxos. Passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough evidence that it's a reliable source. Unfortunately, RS's tend to report on the news, and not each other, a weakness of the GNG I've noticed before. The Steve 09:50, 4 December 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.