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.
Does not appear to satisfy
WP:GNG. An obscure, long defunct newspaper. PROD declined without explanation by article creator.
Safiel (
talk) 17:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
As per WP:BEFORE B6, a better article is available on the Spanish Wikipedia.
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: as non-notable and defunct foreign-language paper in
Chile.
Quis separabit? 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets GNG, per Unscintillating above. I additionally state that we should have a really, really low bar for inclusion of articles about historic newspapers. We are a comprehensive encyclopedia after all, and this is our fare. Fight the notability fight over My Little Pony characters, businesspeople on the make, or semi-professional athletes...
Carrite (
talk) 18:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-notable, even without some "National Library" references it doesn't mean that it should have an article (in that case, we could create millions of article only based on the folders kept in a library archive). And we should avoid some statements like the previous one made by Carrite because it has nothing to do about this article or this theme; there are two different things, and if Carrite have some kind of aprehension about My Little Pony or what else, then this deletion request it's not the place to make such statements ;) --
Sfs90 (
talk) 06:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)reply
'Delete' -- defunct newspaper with only nine years in existence. Sources do not suggest this could meet GNG.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – Per
WP:5, the encyclopedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is the type of content that would be in some
almanacs. North America1000 01:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I struck my delete vote, as this article is worthwhile to keep for historical purposes and sources presented appear to signify notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as a reliably documented, defunct newspaper.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:16, 15 August 2016 (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.