Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date (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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers by establishment date[edit]

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

Article is not very strong and not enough data Yougo1000 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I have no strong feelings about this list, neither "not very strong" nor "not enough data" are valid deletion reasons. Also note that this is actually the first nomination for this article. In creating the AFD nominator somehow made it appear there was a previous one. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep although indeed not completely developed yet, I think this article is relevant enough. Collaboration to develop articles from stub to better is what Wikipedia is all about. Agree with Otto4711 that no valid deletion ground is given. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date which was opened at the same time because the nominator made some mistakes. Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Keep: No sufficient reasons given. The topic is notable, the entries are well-sourced and the table structure is there for a massive expansion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep although indeed not completely developed yet, I think this article is easily relevant and notable enough. Collaboration to develop articles from stub to better is what Wikipedia is all about. No valid deletion reason is given, so not sure why the nominator thinks this can be deleted within guideline. (PS note that the nominator has accidentily created both this first nomination AND the second nomination (see sidebox) at the same time. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep: The argument posed by the nominator for deletion (in the other nomination page) perhaps belongs in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category, hence it is invalid as a reason to delete the article. Besides this, I can see no valid reason to delete the article, especially since it has just begun and has yet to be properly expanded.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

Keep The nomination is not very strong and has not enough data. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The subject, presented as a list, has it's own encyclopedic value. No questions about. However, I share the nominator's concern about contents: such lists makes sense when they are more or less complete and unbiased. No London Gazette? Why? Does the modern concept of universality (sic) apply to the 17th century? East of Borschov 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "London Gazette" was originally published as "Oxford Gazette" and it already appears in the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, if you allow some leeway for the broadening of the range of topics overtime, and don't fall into the anachronistic trap of judging the ancient Athenian democracy in terms of the modern democracy. The implicit benchmark, mentioned in the lead, is obviously the forerunner of the Avviso which heavily concentrated on economic news. So, yes, in comparison to these handsheets, the earliest newspaper were comparatively universal in their scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - London gazette added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, it meets every requirement for an almanac type list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just in case my input on the first nomination page isn't counted here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and significant.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be two concurrent AfDs for this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date. Them From Space 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons given by nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2010 (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.