Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Hill Liberal


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Richmond Hill Liberal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a suburban community hyperlocal newspaper, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, newspapers are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because their own self-published web presence offers technical verification that they exist -- the notability test is the ability to use coverage about the paper, in e.g. books or other newspapers independent of itself, to demonstrate its significance. But the sole source here is a single article published in self-same newspaper about its own history, which is obviously not an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd lean toward a 140-year-old community newspaper probably being notable. Keep in mind that WP:NMEDIA does offer some alternatives to GNG. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that NMEDIA offers some flexibility about the possibility of a newspaper not having as much sourcing as a non-media organization might have to show, but it definitely doesn't offer any total exemptions from a newspaper having to have any sources beyond itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * also, see WP:ITSOLD. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - huge WP:BEFORE failure. I added six references from major newspapers. Surely if Pierre Berton read it and wrote about it, it's notable! Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't fail to BEFORE, you failed to apply the "is this source substantively about the subject, or is it just a glancing namecheck of the subject's existence in an article about something else" test. That Pierre Berton cite isn't about the Richmond Hill Liberal, for example: it just briefly mentions the paper's existence in a very short blurb whose subject was a ratepayer's association meeting in Maple. So it isn't a source that helps to establish the notability of the Richmond Hill Liberal just because a famous writer once typed the words "Richmond Hill Liberal" — the newspaper is not the subject of the source, but just has its name mentioned in a source about something else. The other Toronto Star citation is also not about the Richmond Hill Liberal — it again gets glancingly mentioned in an article whose subject is a person who happened to write a letter to the editor as a small step in the process of achieving the thing the article is actually about. And of the three Globe and Mail citations, two are obituaries of its former editors, and the third is an unsubstantive blurb which devotes exactly 11 words total to the matter of T. F. McMahon purchasing the paper while devoting several hundred words to other things — so none of them are notability builders either, because they aren't non-trivial coverage about the paper. The only footnote you've added that's contributing anything whatsoever toward GNG is the Ron Haggart "Paper Changes Tune On Interest Conflict" cite — but even just passing GNG takes a lot more than just one source of that calibre. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the various name checks argued for above do not show the substantial level of coverage we need to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited, and just because someone who was connected with a publication gets an obituary does not show the thing itself was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that User:Johnpacklambert if the obituary was primarily about the person, and not the paper he edited. But the headline was literally more about the newspaper than the editor, who wasn't even named in the headline! Also, what did you think of the substantial reference to a book that I've added since anyone else commented? Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A glancing mention on one single page of a biography of a person who lived in the town, but had no significant personal association with the paper, is not a "substantial" reference about the paper. Again, we are not looking for sources that mention the Richmond Hill Liberal — we are looking for sources in which the Richmond Hill Liberal is the main subject. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going keep with this per WP:NMEDIA. 140 years is enough to merit having "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history." Missvain (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not without a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about the paper, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The foundation of this historic newspaper is covered in detail in Langstaff: A Nineteenth-Century Medical Life. It passes WP:NMEDIA and policy WP:ATD applies, " If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 27 May 2021 (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.