Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser

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. Without prejudice to any merger discussion. Sandstein 10:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser[edit]

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

The article does not explain the importance or notability Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect into The Queensland Times, which is the continuation of this same paper. It is clearly important because it is the oldest surviving Queensland newspaper. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether merging this into the newspaper's "competition" during the period it was active is the best approach. I agree that this is on a notable topic, so I suggest keeping the article as is. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~@User:Nick-D Where does it say they were in competition? I thought the name just started changing under new ownership in 1861. --99of9 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - ~~Keep~~ Oh ok, I see "the paper merged into "The Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald, and ..." --99of9 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge Nope, I've changed my mind again. I can't find any material saying that they were previously in competition. One publication says "merge", but others say "sold to three former employees of a rival newspaper The North Australian", which had been discontinued a few months before. As far as I can tell there was no Queensland Times to merge with - that name was made up by the new owners, who came directly from the Northern Australian. So anyway, I've tried to expand the article, but I'm finding myself writing a near-duplicate of the history section of The Queensland Times, because it really is the same lineage. (@User:Nick-D have you found something I haven't?) --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article about a notable topic need not overtly explain its notability, when its notability is clear. This historic newspaper was published for 47 years, and its successor is still published today. The newspaper was notable back then, and as an historical topic, it is still notable today, as notability is not temporary. There is no benefit in merging the content, as readily available references already in the article show the notability of this historical topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does 47 come from? It changed names after two years. I don't think that 2 years had significance enough in the souces to write a separate article. I agree they're notable, but notable together. --99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability appears to be established and its own article is warranted. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide its own article is warranted? I tried to write a separate article, and am treading exactly the same ground as the history section of the Queensland Times. All the sources are about the Queensland Times.--99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a historic newspaper. Let's cut to the chase and call this a defense on the basis of Ignore All Rules — it's a matter of common sense that articles on long-running and prominent newspapers are inherently encyclopedic. That there is no SNG low bar for such pieces (which are rarely challenged) is a systemic flaw of the AfD system, not a deficiency of this topic or this particular article. Moreover, I don't doubt in the least that published histories of the city and Australian publishing deal with the title in a substantial way. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When closing, please also consider the opinions of those discussing a merge. --99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (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.