Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area News Group (2nd nomination)

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. Lourdes 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area News Group[edit]

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

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

This article on a small local news publisher survived AfD in 2015 with a ‘no consensus’ result in 2015. I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I think that it is useful to be able to validate the existence and respectability of news sources, because some of the component papers are older than the group, and because I have added sourcing from regional dailies Boston Globe, The Sun (Lowell) and New Hampshire Union Leader.IceFishing (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Totally not notable. Two of the articles added by IceFishing seem to be about how their news papers ran something that helped someone get a spleen or something. I wouldn't call that worthy of the parent company the article is about being notable. There isn't automatic notability by association. Same goes for two of the news papers having a supposedly popular column. That might make them (questionably) notable, but it doesn't by proxy make their parent company notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IceFishing. Useful and encyclopedic, and considerably more sensible than having separate articles for each of these three newspapers. -- Visviva (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visviva:, except none of the three news papers have their own article. Probably because they aren't notable either. They are listed here, but it just forwards back to the Area News Group article. Which makes me think they had articles at one point that where removed for lack of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceFishing (talk · contribs); see also draft notability criteria for newspapers here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability. Please note, I have expanded the article a great deal with citations from other (independently owned) newspapers. These include coverage of two ownership changes, a lawsuit around conflict of interest, and impact of the paper's coverage on other local media and local politics. I found these through my library's subscription to NewsBank, so they are not available online for easy review, but your library may also have this subscription. The article was borderline when nominated, but I think with this expansion it's a clear "keep". I would welcome assistance in better organizing the info I've added, though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (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.