Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrewsbury Chronicle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:29, 24 October 2018

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 is 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[reply]

Revision as of 12:25, 24 October 2018 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,555,967 edits m Signing comment by Keerti.kasat - "→Shrewsbury Chronicle: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:29, 24 October 2018 edit undo Keerti.kasat (talk \| contribs) 6 edits →Shrewsbury Chronicle Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	*'''Keep'''. Notable local newspaper. There is nothing wrong with refs from a subject's own website. -- [[User:Necrothesp\|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp\|talk]]) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)		*'''Keep'''. Notable local newspaper. There is nothing wrong with refs from a subject's own website. -- [[User:Necrothesp\|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp\|talk]]) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

	*'''Delete''' - ~~please~~ ~~delete~~ ~~this~~ ~~page.~~ It is ~~created with secondary~~ sources. ~~<!--~~ ~~Template:Unsigned~~ ~~--><small~~ ~~class="autosigned">— Preceding~~ ~~[[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]]~~ ~~comment~~ ~~added~~ by [[User:Keerti.kasat\|Keerti.kasat]] ([[User talk:Keerti.kasat~~#top~~\|talk~~]] • [[Special:Contributions/Keerti.kasat\|contribs~~]]) 12:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)~~</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->~~		*'''Delete''' - “Subject’s notability has been established using primary sources therefore the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. [[User:Keerti.kasat\|Keerti.kasat]] ([[User talk:Keerti.kasat\|talk]]) 12:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[[User:keerti.kasat]]