Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Devon Gazette


 * 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. John254 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

North Devon Gazette
no notability asserted Frog47 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the fact there is no firm assertion of notability, I think this is notable enough for inclusion; we aren't a paper encyclopedia, after all, so we can afford to include loads of small articles like this that most won't care about but will interest some people. We have no size limits, and so should include whatever fits within our other criteria. There is room for articles on nearly verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such, and though there are some articles that are just completely non-notable, this isn't one of them IMO.-- Jaeger   123  20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep - fails WP:CORP. No reliable sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Afd is not cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing the references today. Changed to keep. BTW, AfD isn't cleanup but one of the main concerns of an article deletion is notability. Dekisugi (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. My comment should of went in reply to the nominator. It's a good idea to check for notability yourself however. SunCreator (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - reliable sources added Animal-friendly paper recognised for work from the RSPCA. There are others over 10 pages of news items on G news, although some directly from the paper itself. SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references seem sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - being cited as a source by The Daily Telegraph and USA Today is notable. BlueValour (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. To delete this entry because a local newspaper is not worthy of being referenced would be a sad standard to set and, presumably, result in other local newspaper references being removed from Wikipedia as well.  Clarejh 17:24, 17 April 2008
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the most widely distributed paper in the North Devon area, with a circulation of over 50,000 (figures from http://jiab.jicreg.co.uk) - fchd (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (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.