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 and move to The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NJToday.net[edit]

NJToday.net (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)

Not notable Biggus Dictus (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that above is an argument for notability of The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate, not NJToday.net. Are there independent sources which show they're identical (or even related)? --Biggus Dictus (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources show The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate is notable. I was unable to find an independent source to connect NJToday.net and The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate.

I am fine with renaming the article to either The Bridgetown Museum and New Jersey Advocate (or the newspaper's latest name that has been verified by an independent reliable source), keeping the "History" section about the paper's history, and removing mention of NJToday.net if no editors can find an independent reliable source that verifies the connection between the two.

Cunard (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming as you suggest makes sense to me.Biggus Dictus (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2017 (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.