This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
That doesn't really mean much one way or the other regarding notability. Right now the sources are either very routine or primary, which is useful for filling in details, but not for establishing notability. The exception was from a literary/gardening blog, which is probably not WP:RS. It appears that content was mostly from Idyllwild and the High San Jacintos, so I've replaced the ref. There's not a whole lot about the paper in it, but it's something. Notability standards for newspapers, especially older ones, are a bit more forgiving than WP:GNG, at least in practice. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) is an essay which is (I think) too strict and too difficult to reach, but is reasonably similar to past consensus. Basically, any substantial, independent sources would help. More are needed. Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your removal of The Literary Gardener, I don't completely object since you did replace it with another source. However, I thought I would mention to you that I think you are selling Paula Panich short. The name is a play on words, not a complete dedication to gardening. Although her "Mountain Stories" series is self-published on the internet on a blog-type of site, Panich is a legitimate writer. She has been published in both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times multiple times and not always about gardening, as this article can attest. She also has a few books published and has taught at UCLA. I don't think any of it makes Panich notable, but it does, imho, make her reliable.
Regarding notability and the criteria in the essay you cited, I have a general distaste for notability requirements whether they have reached policy level or not. Most of them serve to go against Jimmy Wales' original desire to create a site for the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia's popularity is due to its inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. There are no size limitations as with a printed encyclopedia. The fact that a mountain community is small or that the circulation of their local newspaper is low, shouldn't really change the its historical significance for that community. Especially, when there is demonstrable local reverence for people like Ernie Maxwell, whom people write about decades after his passing. The fact that the rest of the world doesn't pay attention is irrelevant in my opinion. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. User:SVTCobra invited me here after I reviewed and accepted the article.
The notability of the topic is not a slam dunk. I believe the decision would come down to how it is viewed. As a for-profit, currently trading company, it would have to meet WP:CORP, which I believe it would be held to fail. As a seventy year old historic part of society, it would get a much easier pass. Arguably, the old 1940s newspaper is not the same beast as the current company. If the article remains focused on the history, and gives the last 10% of its life no more than 10% of the space, the I think it will be OK. I noted the article has a few incoming links from mainspace. I recommend working to improved cross-referencing between articles, improving content on how this topic relates to that topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
