Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twofold Bay Telegraph

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. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twofold Bay Telegraph[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Appears to have been in existence for just a few months in the 19th Century, so unclear if notability can be established. Over 7,000 newspapers are in the digitisation program, so that doesn't establish notability either. South Nashua (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 2 of the media notability criteria. It is of historical value. Digitized by a National Library. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That criteria, that the newspaper "(has) served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history," doesn't apply here. The national library appears to be digitizing everything indiscriminately, and the newspaper does not appear to have done anything of historic value on its own. South Nashua (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Library digitized "historic Australian periodicals". Historic content is exactly what criteria is all about. You may think the paper and its history are not notable, but a national government concluded differently. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a difference between a national library preserving something because they're trying to preserve everything and preserving something because that something matters. Wikipedia policy looks down on instances of the former. South Nashua (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article shows that the newspaper existed but doesnt show how it is notable ie. articles/books that discuss the paper and its impact, any stories published by the paper that was of influence, any awards won by the paper or its reporters, agree with nominator that digitisation is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not at all notable in its own right. Merge and redirect to Eden, New South Wales. Aoziwe (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 2017 (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.