Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrewsbury Chronicle

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 per WP:SNOW nom blocked as a Sock and Troll and the delete !votes were almost exclusivly not based on policy guidelines or essays and from SPA. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury Chronicle

[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)

Page has been created from questionable self-published sources. The sources used to support the page are not reliable, verifiable and all primary. Some of them even link to the Shrewsbury Chronicle's website. This is unacceptable Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I say this keep with some hesitation. The article begins by saying that the Shrewsbury Chronicle is one of the oldest weekly newspapers in the United Kingdom, and lists a number of notable people who have contributed to the newspaper, which should make the paper notable. However, the references are all primary references. Rather than delete the article, I suggest we have a tag pointing out that the references are all primary, and that the article could be improved with some secondary sources. Vorbee (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some content and secondary refs. I think the paper meets point 2 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. It could also meet point 1, have produced award winning work, but the source for the award is poor. Tacyarg (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable local newspaper. There is nothing wrong with refs from a subject's own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - “Subject’s notability has been established using primary sources therefore the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Keerti.kasat (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)User:keerti.kasat — keerti.kasat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Wiki User - The content of this page is setup using primary sources and hence it is not valid for wikipedia. Please delete the page -- User:Avinash (talk) 1:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Avinash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. Creating single-use accounts to put your point of view across does not help your credibility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is only supported by secondary sources and while it's historical significance means it might meet point 2 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, there are not sufficient sources to verify this notability and the page should be deleted. Pushprathi (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references now seem to indicate sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic notability. Can I take this opportunity to raise how the originator of this delete request has done almost nothing else but try to get articles deleted... and lo and behold there are further new accounts supporting the delete requests... Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable local newspaper with a long history of over 200 years. However, the article does still need some improvement in terms of references. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This article is clearly poorly sourced. Contrary to what the inclusionists here are saying the Shrewsbury Chronicle has little historical significance. It is a free local newspaper that primarily reports on marrow growing contests and garden gnome thefts. It advertises scummy businesses to its core demographic of alcoholics, stay at home mums and pensioners. The Shrewsbury Chronicle is a waste of server space and should be deleted at once. Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this is a clear nomination from a troll who also appears to have an axe to grind against the paper. Speedy close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sumorsǣte: I think it is good that newcomers to our community feel as passionately about deletionism as I do. Please don't create a hostile environment for new Wikipedians. It's not very nice. Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author of this article did not cite authoritative sources. Not notable and possibly not original research. Aso2018 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)— Aso2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. There's something strange about the nomination and all the new editors popping up to say delete. Methinks a SPI might be in order Lyndaship (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: yep looks very fishy to me. Some amazing skills demonstrated for a newbie...I have got eyes on their edits. Agree with @Necrothesp: too and have posted a warning about their delete !vote which I believe is totally inappropriate. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a bit baffled by elements of this debate - particularly the proposer now having tagged Hansard in the article as not a reliable source and better source needed. I also wonder if the proposer carried out WP:BEFORE. See also the similar debate on the Shropshire Star. Tacyarg (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@Tacyarg: Ok. Well, I'm a reasonable fellow, and as a reasonable fellow, I can see that having reviewed the evidence this subject is indeed notable. I hereby change my vote to *Keep, I apologize for my schoolboy error and as an act of contrition hereby put myself forward to fix the page.Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been delete !votes you can no longer WP:WITHDRAW your nomination but this can be Snowball kept I believe seeing the quality of the delete !votes such as This article is only supported by secondary sources and also possibly not original research which are actually keep rationales. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nom has been blocked as a troll/sock/poor speller this can be snow closed now. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (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.