Talk:Phoenix New Times

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Relevance?

This is a local free sheet. Does it actually deserve a page? raining girl (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay. They've got pages on other free weeklies and even other New Times in other cities. ONEder Boy (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just throw into the discussion that the NEw Times is a bit more than just a local free sheet. It holds a fairly significant position in the local political discourse due to the editors' persistent criticism of certain aspects of local government. Especially since the incident with the Sheriff's Office, the New Times has occupied a notable role in Phoenix politics. 70.190.25.139 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, censorship??

Further, I notice I'm not the first person to mention this, and that the last commment (calling it rather less politely 'a leftist fish wrapper') was deleted. raining girl (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question. Strawberry Island (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the Website?

Is it really appropriate to quote the newspaper's self-description from their website in a neutral encyclopedia article? This seems more like self-promotion. XINOPH | TALK 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... and why I came to this talk page. Strawberry Island (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phoenix New Times front page.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Phoenix New Times front page.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phoenix New Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest controversy outdated

The whole section on arrest controversy seems to be outdated, Azcentral reported on a more recent lawsuit which is worth mention on this article. Either that or a link to this section of backpage. Any thoughts? CR055H41RZ (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]