Talk:Pickens County Herald

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... It was marked after I had mistakenly published a draft too early. As it stands now it establishes a significant history, dating back to 1904. The Library of Congress newspaper database (Chronicling America) is currently down, but when it is back up we can link to the records there as well. I believe that given the inclusive criteria for media this article should stand. --Michaelacaulfield (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I'm not satisfied with the sources given on the page. They do little to establish the notability of the newspaper. The "significant history" part of WP:NME is rather vague, and it seems to me that a newspaper being old doesn't mean that it's notable. Most of the sources currently given on the page, aside from the introductory column from 1904, do little to prove the paper is notable as they essentially say simply that the paper exists--that alone doesn't make it notable. I'll be frank--if an admin declines the CSD (which may happen since the page was improved), I will still be sending the page to AfD. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 00:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not previously aware of this specific newspaper (but have talked with Mike about his general project of adding articles about local newspapers). While I agree that it would have been difficult to conclude the newspaper is notable based on the version of the article at the time this discussion began, I think that Mike's recent additions have made it abundantly clear that the paper is notable; it was covered by neighboring papers for its launch over 100 years ago, its relaunch and financing also over 100 years ago, its stand on the KKK, its Democratic party affiliation, its move from one town to another, its having had two editors with multi-decade tenures. It has been noted in numerous other area publications, with occasional national mentions. I've added a few more possible sources for expansion to the talk page, but I think notability per WP:GNG has been amply demonstrated in the article in its current form, and with the 12 references already included. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I walked back my deletionism and agree with you. In reality the page should have briefly been moved to draftspace, but the issues have been corrected and I have struck my previous comments. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources for expansion
Some of the following stories require a library or paid login. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (editor/publisher was interviewed by CBS and Associated Press on a local story)
 * (profile and photo from 1955 writeup cited in 199 article)
 * (paper of record, notices required for local election snafu)
 * (used as a primary research source for an article in the Press-Register)