Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern District Times


 * 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 there isnt enough information/WP:RS to sustain an article but in this case most likely outcome is a merge but to what still unresolved. I have commenced a discussion section on the article talk page to adress this issue, please comment there. Gnangarra 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern District Times

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The paper is a small community newspaper with a limited area of circulation. It is not a notable statewide or national daily, nor is it a paper of record. Circulation information comes from a self-published source, being the company that owns the paper. Does not meet WP:CORP and lacks WP:RS. It also is not linked to other than in a limited number of references from three articles. I'm split on the nomination of this one given it's a well-structured stub, so i'll open the floor to see what the community makes of it. Thewinchester (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit: comments removed - I'm not going to take any further part in this debate.) JRG 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *Comment And how do you justify the claim of bad faith in this AfD nomination? The fact is there is no basis or information you can use to justify that claim, and saying that they did so is in itself bad faith. In respect to consultation, this is what AfD is for. Additionally, as the key contributor to the article you are exhibiting tendencies as documented in WP:OWN. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Thewinchester (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Comment no longer relevant as what it was in response to was withdrawn. Thewinchester (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I tried to find a reputable third party source on this subject (as opposed to a source that mentions it in passing) and came up empty handed. There's nothing in the State Library of New South Wales on it, for example. If a source can be found, I'll reverse my position. Hesperian 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP and lack of WP:RS. With no disrespect whatsoever to the creator (after a conversation on our talk pages this morning), local newspapers, while excellent sources for local-level news that would not make a larger publication but is still relevant in articles with a local focus (eg suburbs, train stations or systems, local councils, local identities, etc), are not *themselves* notable, especially if simply part of a cookie-cutter chain such as News Ltd's stable. I gave the example earlier of the Stirling Times, a very useful paper for articles in Perth's northern suburbs but for most points and purposes simply non-notable in the sense that one could not obtain non-self-published information about the paper itself. Incidentally, the Northern District Times even has the same *logo* as our one at the other side of the country . This suggests to me a future article List of local newspapers in Sydney (or similar) with a list of such papers with their stable identified. Such an article could even be taken to the status of a featured list, and I'd strongly suggest the creator focus their attention in that direction if the consensus here remains delete. Orderinchaos 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If is anything to go by - there is an historical aspect of the particular publishing venture related to the newspaper that no one seems to have picked up on.bah humbug as always SatuSuro 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment - as to the average afd comment here seems to illustrate more here about the processes involved, the information tendered seems to be irrelevent - the business appears to either in their current form or in the earlier form have been a significant business as printer for a number of organisations and groups in the history of the north shore - back to the 1940s SatuSuro 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, (four edit conflicts) the original version looks good for a first cut. I agree it is bad faith to so quickly nominate an article written by someone you see around the traps regularly. Article talk or User talk should be used first.  This article was recently speedied by Orderinchaos despite having incoming links. John Vandenberg 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than that, John. The article had been up for quite a while, but were speedily deleted. JRG recreated, with the assertion if someone wants it deleted they should take it through AfD. Shortly afterwards TheWinchester did so. I make no comment on whether the original speedy deletions were correct, nor on whether JRG's recreation was appropriate. But it is fair to say that TheWinchester knew this context and should not be accused of acting in bad faith. Hesperian 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole original discussion was on my talk page and JRG's a few hours ago, so anyone reading either would have been appraised of the context (other than that the article sat as a substub since 15 August 2006). I had no opinion at the time after the discussion, but as the AfD has since arisen I thought it was only right to share my opinion. Orderinchaos 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * JRG's recreation should have been given the benefit of the doubt, tagged and discussed on the talk page, like the good book tells us to do. John Vandenberg 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with North Shore Times and any others to become News Limited Community Newspapers. Individually, none of these papers are notable. Collectively, they reach a vast proportion of the Australian population, free of charge which provides News Limited with a huge opportunity to push a corporate agenda under the visage of "news coverage".Garrie 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not free - the NDT costs money now. JRG 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well mate your getting scammed them. I still get mine for free. ExtraDry 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually quite a fair compromise and along the lines I was suggesting, although I think by region rather than by printer is more useful as people reading about Perth ones wouldn't want or need to read about Sydney ones (even if they do have the same name and logo), and there's more than enough to hold the fort anyway at either end. Orderinchaos 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Orderinchaos that a merge `by region' sounds appropriate if the consensus is that this newspaper isnt notable enough.  As an aside, I am really keen on having a article/redirect for every secondary source used on Wikipedia, so the reader can quickly find accurate/maintained information about the source, to judge the data being source; in the vein, perhaps a guideline improvement (WP:LOCAL?) is desirable that if a local newspaper is not notable enough to meet WP:ORG/CORP, the article should be merged into the appropriate geographical region's article. John Vandenberg 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment having recently started a regional newspaper stub in wa I would stongly support this form as a way around the issue SatuSuro 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I agree that not all local papers in Sydney are notable, but this, along with some other community papers (the North Shore Times and Inner-West Weekly (which has never had an article) are notable papers that have been around for a very long time in Sydney. I note that there are no guidelines that state that a paper has to be a national daily paper before it can have an article; and as for the sources, the information is drawn from Roy Morgan research, which is merely quoted on the News Limited page - it is not as if News Limited drew up the information itself. The newspaper draws on the federal electorate of Bennelong, the consituency of John Howard, and has had produced significant comment and publicity on regional issues in this part of Sydney such as the North West Rail Link, the Epping to Chatswood Line, the M2 widening and Lane Cove Tunnel issues, heritage funding, and the upcoming 2007 election battle between Maxine McKew and John Howard.  ExtraDry 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge To a list of regional newspapers. Collectively notable. If any then gain sufficient references and text to be a syandalone article they can do so. Edison 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:N and WP:RS: As a subsidiary of News Ltd of which any number of almost identical titles exist in the Sydney region, this paper has a more minor status than a more independent newspaper and hence reliable sources independent of the paper reporting on it are very unlikely to be found as external sources are more likely to speak for a region's News Ltd papers than for any individual one. Zivko85 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only on rather technical (WP:RS) grounds. Support re-creation if independent sources can be found.  Lankiveil 04:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment Can someone let me know if this is to be merged, what we are merging - Cumberland Newspaper Group seems to be a good candidate (homepage) as being the NSW arm of News Limited community newspapers. (the others being [http://www.questnews.com.au/ Quest, Leader, Messenger, Sun, Community and tassie misses out). I think it would easily meet WP:CORP.Garrie 05:55, 13 June 2007 (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.