- 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Domovina (newspaper) (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)
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]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of its own notability and article. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was able to find sourcing by looking in the article:
- 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.