Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haugaland Arbeiderblad


 * 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.  JustEase (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Haugaland Arbeiderblad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews, 1 hit in gscholar. gbooks indicates mainly verifies its existence rather than indepth coverage. . similar results for alternate name "Haugesunds Folkeblad". LibStar (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep systemic bias. Legitimate defunct newspaper of Norway. MLA (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * it still requires sources. Gbooks normally turns up for historically significant. There are many defunct newspapers in the world, not all merit an article. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See wp:recentism. The accepted wikipedia convention is "once notable,always notable". walk victor falktalk 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep  As a local paper of the Norwegian Labour Party, the largest party at the time, it is notable. Consideration should be taken for the relative paucity of on-line sources in 1955. walk  victor falktalk 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frivolous to even mention Google News in the nomination. Kind of long-running newspaper. Definitely notable. Had several notable editors, as shown through WhatLinksHere. Probably has an entry in a 2010 book, but I haven't checked yet (don't own the book). Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep notable; Victor Falk shows some coverage which is reliable, and Geschichte's claim is plausible. Gbooks also shows a bit in Aschehougs konversasjons leksikon, although preview is not available, it seems that the newspaper has been covered in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia. I also have a problem with the nominator's rationale, as it is based entirely on finding little in three, online, modern, English-language sites, all from the same company and all which have severe limitations in their coverage. Information about such a subject is likely to be found at a real-live library. Arsenikk (talk)  10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.