Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southport Visiter

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 (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Southport Visiter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Southport Visiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable article. No significant coverage of the paper itself shown in the listed sources; its journalists got articles when they retire but notability is not inherited. Amisom (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: long-established local newspaper with unusual title, cited in several Wikipedia articles which would be the poorer without the ability to click through to this article to verify the credentials (and spelling) of this newspaper. PamD 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  None of that suggests that it's notable. Being long-established doesn't mean it passes the WP:GNG. Having an unusual name doesn't mean it passes GNG. And we cite sources all the time that don't have clickable links, and that's fine, because our criteria is the GNG not 'I think this would look prettier with a blue link'. Amisom (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Article also has plenty of refs to support notability. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  Which of those refs comprises 'significant coverage"? Amisom (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Long-established local newspaper. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  WP:ITSOOLD? Amisom (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW KEEP sourced article on local newspaper. It is extremely functional and user friendly to provide basic inforamtion on news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  @E.M.Gregory: So WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:ITSUSEFUL? Amisom (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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.