Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retford Times

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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retford Times[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)

Was deprodded but no reason given. I can't see how this meets WP:NOTABILITY. At best a redirect to Local World or Retford. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (media) says on Newspapers and magazines: 2.have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. It is is a paid for newspaper not a free advertiser and has been a news outlet since 19th century.User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep It's a historic newspaper. For some details of its long history see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is 150 years old, but I don't think this means it meets 'served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history.' Thousands of local British newspapers would meet this criteria if it is mainly based on age, but not if on significance. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Old-established local newspaper. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems like the Keep votes are based on a variation of WP:ITSACASTLE, i.e. ITSANOLDNEWSPAPER. Local newspapers are cultural institutions, and if they last for 150 years, they have historic significance. It's not easy for an AfD-style search to turn up good sources, because the search results are choked with books and articles that are citing the Retford Times' coverage of something, like this one and this one. But ITSACASTLE. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained by DSH above, WP:NMEDIA specifically says that "Notability is presumed for newspapers ... that ... have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history". It's the nomination that wants to delete because WP:ITSLOCAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I'm saying that the spirit of ITSACASTLE also suggests that notability should be presumed for a 150-year-old newspaper, "local" or not. – Toughpigs (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This well established newspaper is clearly notable. Mirrorme22 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 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.