Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet S


 * 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 delete. Inclement weather ahead Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Planet S

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable bi-weekly local newspaper; fails WP:GNG, given that no one outside Saskatoon appears to have noted its existence.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. notability guidelines for organizations. There are no independent, third party reliable sources nor can I locate anything about them rather than by them.  Jbh  Talk  19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not demonstrate notability. - Scarpy (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, it appears to be a local interest/promotional publication, no indication or evidence of notability.  PK  T (alk)  13:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a leftover from about a decade ago, when Wikipedia was a lot more lax about the notability standards for newspapers — it used to be that a newspaper was extended a presumption of notability as long as its existence was verifiable via its own self-published website. But that's not the standard that applies today: a newspaper, even a major market alt-weekly like Now or The Georgia Straight, still has to be sourceable to some evidence of reliable source coverage in sources independent of itself to clear WP:NMEDIA in 2018. I can't, however, find any evidence of the kind of sourcing that's required — even on a deep ProQuest search, all I can find is a handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above comment. Redditaddict69 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Daask (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2018 (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.