Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parramatta 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. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Parramatta Advertiser

Parramatta Advertiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Ip removed the prod. Article is very short I question the importance of the subject I have never heard of it. Source links look as though they are thin on the ground because if there was any worthwhile links they would be on the article by now as its been here since 2007 with very little edits. Daniel298289 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Subject is not-notable, and I feel I should point out that this could've been speedily deleted as copyvio from http://www.newscorpaustralia.com/brand/parramatta-advertiser -War wizard90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look important in an encyclopedia. It's also very short, and doesn't seem to be a valid stub. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Being short is not a valid reason for deletion and we don't judge on "importance", but rather on reliable source coverage or lack thereof. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio per War wizard90, despite some dubious reasoning in the nomination. Frickeg (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per below, note that this should be without prejudice against recreation using non-plagiarised material. Frickeg (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Changing to keep now that copyvio has been dealt with. Frickeg (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The Parramatta Advertiser is notable:

1. It was launched in 1933 by the Cumberland Newspaper Group and became its "flagship".[1][2]
2. The electronic edition of the paper is now under the umbrella of the Daily Telegraph — a notable Australian daily newspaper.
3. It was the successor of another notable newspaper: The Cumberland Argus — which was incorporated into the Parramatta Advertiser in 1962.
4. At that time it was the largest regional newspaper in Australia.[3]
5. Since that time it has been the main local newspaper for the City of Parramatta.
6. It is notable enough to be archived at the State Library of NSW.[4]
7. It is notable enough to be archived on microfilm by the Parramatta Heritage Centre.[5]
8. It is notable enough to be "wanted" for digitisation by the National Library of Australia.[6]
9. It is notable enough to have its death and other notices be indexed by the Ryerson Index.[7]
10. It is notable enough to have a Libraries Australia ID and listings on Trove.[8]

However, I do agree that all the current text is straight plagiarism and should be removed. --Very trivial (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the previous commenter's rationale. Historically significant local paper with a reasonable distribution, passes WP:GNG, no basis on which to delete. The current text is a copyvio and can be deleted, but it needs to be made clear that this is a notable topic and recreations of the page without the copyvio should not be eligible for deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: "I have never heard of it" is not a good argument for deletion, except perhaps if you lived in Parramatta. Very trivial's arguments for keeping are persuasive.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The copyright violation appears to have been dealt with by editing. Discussion should now focus on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - in the list of keep rationales provided above, 6 through 10 can be ignored as being consistent with the treatment of even the smallest regional papers. The State Library, for example, makes a particular point of chronicling local history by archiving regional papers. That said, 1 through 5 (history, regional significance, etc) seem like perfectly sound reasons to keep this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - not sure why this is being relisted (to waste more time and effort) - it was very clear that all my previous points were specifically related to notability, and the plagiarism aspect has now been fixed. --Very trivial (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You only need to !vote once. Discussions are re-listed in the hope a clearer consensus will emerge. While you might have made your point, there is no "right" and "wrong" and someone may still disagree with your assertions. As it was, four people supported deletion and only three supported keeping the article. I'd think you'd be happy about re-listing it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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.