Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Western Daily

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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Western Daily

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no apparent evidence for notability, just for existence DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable regional daily newspaper. Massively unhelpful to delete articles on reliable sources we're likely to use in any of our coverage of a significant chunk of the state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A daily circulation of 6000 isn't going to cut it by itself. I don't see any notable distinctions/awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator and supporter might not have knowledge of the Australian National Library website http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=central+western+daily, historic and notable with multiple sources. Pity the Trove item isnt somehow included to inform outsiders misuderstandings of Australian media, or for that matter the Australian newspaper projects specifically setup to tabulate and outline the significance and notability of newspapers. All it needs is a vamp from the trove refs and this can be closed. JarrahTree 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me it seems obvious that a regional newspaper published by one of a country's largest media companies, with more that 70 years of publication, should be included. As JarrahTree says, its inclusion and digitisation by the National Library demonstrates it is an important element of Australia's media history. Dismissing it because of its current circulation (and in Australia, 6,000 daily is actually very high) seems to me to be missing the point. --Canley (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You;ve made a good argument for including it in the article in the main company and redirecting. Not all the newspapers owned by a major media company are likely to be notable -- see WP:NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps missing the point slightly, Australian newspapers that are broadly captured in both the the Trove system, and the articles about them are part of larger scope that takes current status as less of importance than the historical context - the newspapers are both subjects and sources of Australian history and used as such in the Australian project - the 'major media company' and the current information is less importamnt than the historical context. Current status is a logical fallacy in relation to the Australian newspaper project(s) - where the historical context and evidence of notability in the past should carry the article rather than current owners JarrahTree 02:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair, I'll acknowledge that at the time DGG first nominated this, it contained no references at all and was essentially a marketing brochure which said little of substance beyond "this is a newspaper that exists, and covers things that newspapers cover". But the content and referencing has been significantly improved, and per WP:NMEDIA a newspaper does not have to have won awards to be notable enough for inclusion (although that certainly wouldn't hurt, it's not at all a precondition) — the only claim of notability that a newspaper actually has to make to be kept is that its existence and at least a bit of history is verifiable in sources independent of its own self-published content about itself, and that's now been amply shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, nice history description, and good encyclopedic content. Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 22 November 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.