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. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Markdale Standard[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Markdale Standard (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)

Article about a smalltown community newspaper, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NMEDIA. As always, every media outlet is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it existed -- it still has to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about it in sources other than itself. But the only references here are a local history book self-published by the local historical society, being cited only to support the fact that one of its owners in the 1920s also owned another paper (thus not verifiable as having any substantive content about this paper), and a primary source directory of copies of the paper in a digital archive (which is not a notability-supporting source at all). And further, the creator's username suggests a direct affiliation with the digital archive project, making this most likely a conflict of interest attempt to increase their own employer's web traffic by indirectly advertising its own content. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a smalltown newspaper notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would first say that this is a non-profit digital archive. I am not "employed", this is volunteer work. There is no profit in me directing traffic to a website for a non-profit website. Also, my name means "book archive" in Latin. The citation regarding the ownership is applicable to the information contained in the entire paragraph, not the sentence in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberArchivum (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you're paid or a volunteer — if you're associated with the archive at all, then you're directly affiliated with it and still have a conflict of interest. The meaning of your username (which I'm not stupid enough that I didn't already know) doesn't change anything. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are established conflict of interest guidelines for GLAM workers if the edits are made in good faith. Yes, some of the references can be questioned, but I don't see any edits that suggest bad faith. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems you’re conflating my name with some kind of intent. People sometimes choose names similar to their interests. I’ll go ahead and change the external link as well then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.244 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the three best sources with significant coverage of The Markdale Standard in that search? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been referred to in parliamentary records is not a notability claim for a newspaper. It has to be the subject of coverage about it in published media, not merely namechecked in Hansard. Directory entries also aren't support for notability, and neither are university student newspapers. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble is we know this paper is notable - 132 years of publication is a notable achievement. I have been updating the article with refs. It is lean, however I am likely inclined to agree with GreenC. I am still actively looking and improving the article. In my opinion it can go either way, and you know how I feel about WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are your three best sources? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each editor will decide if this meets GNG based on policy. However it is interesting that I often come across editors claiming three references are needed when WP:N has no such requirement. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the number of years that a newspaper was in operation has nothing to do with our notability standards for newspapers at all. A newspaper can be around for 100 years and yet have gotten less notability-supporting reliable source coverage in that entire time than a brand-new web startup — but the notability test is the volume of coverage that the publication does or doesn't have, not the length of operation per se. And yes, basic notability most certainly does require multiple pieces of substantive coverage in reliable sources — so when somebody asks you to identify the three best sources, what they're asking you to do is highlight which sources you think are actually contributing to getting the topic over the notability hump so that we can discuss whether they're actually doing that or not. So no, you don't get to ignore them just because the notability standards don't specifically state that the cutoff is quantified as three — a topic can be notable with less than three footnotes, if it has an "automatic must-include" notability claim like holding an inherently notable political office, and a topic can be not notable with more than three footnotes, if its footnotes fail any of the reliability and depth and geographic range and context tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct notability is not a precise set of hard rules where we say 150 years is notable but 130 is not. However, the essence of notability is something stands out from its peers. GNG is very flexible, it might be a single sentence in a single source - so long as the fact is significant enough to make it notable. A local paper that outlasted all of its peers (over 16), and was the oldest continuously published paper in the county by a large margin is notable. -- GreenC 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rhododendrites! Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this publication, etc. I have, though, added a ref from the Globe via a subscription at my POW. I'll check some of the other databases. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Hey. No compliance with WP:Before (taking into account prospectively what the article could become, not what it was when the motion was made), which should have uncovered the sources NOW in the article. Q.E.D. WP:GNG and WP:Notability are established.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please sign your posts by adding 4 tilde marks at the end like this: ~~~~, thanks. -- GreenC 14:46, 27 November 2019 (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.
More