Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbeidernes blad

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeidernes blad

[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)

Painfully obscure, this newspaper only existed for four months in 1898. None of the sources deal with the newspaper in a substantial way. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication. Doremo (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : The article is informative ,it can be made a stub article instead of deleting it Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being informative and/or providing basic facts is not reason for inclusion. I can write an article that presents "basic facts" about my neighborhood newsletter, that doesn't elevate it to encyclopedic notability. The sources linked confirm existence but don't seem to be in-depth sources about the paper, so we cannot keep it simply on that basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doremo: Having created this, you seem to have some familiarity with Norweigan. Could you perhaps provide translation of the key sources? Or work to find some additional Norwegian language sources? If so, please ping me, as I believe this could be notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited simply confirm the basic information in the article (publication dates, editor, successor publication). There are 1,787 hits for "Arbeidernes blad" at the National Library of Norway website, but most of them are common noun references (i.e., to a workers' paper) rather than to the publication with this title. There is probably more information about the paper hiding somewhere in there. The creator of the original Norwegian WP article (Skaragutt, probably no longer active) or a later contributor may be able to offer additional information about the publication. Doremo (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2020 (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.