Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National (Wales)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The National (Wales)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A very new media outlet, with references that one would expect for a news organisation engaging in PR and other news organisations mentioning the existence of a new competitor. But these are WP:MILL, none of which show it to pass WP:NCORP Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 12:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Keep. Unreal7 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Substantial coverage from reputable news outlets like the BBC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Sdkb. I know we can't cite XYZ at AfD but I'm just saying about 90% of British newspaper article are like this. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis of being WP:TOOSOON. The BBC article is the only one truly independent and unbiased, I don't see how one article can be described as "substantial coverage". All the other sources are connected to The Nationals publisher and parent company. Hold the Front Page appears to be a resource website for journalists. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just the BBC; Press Gazette, for instance, looks like a fine source to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree with nominator stating that the references are what you would expect for a news organization and that that somehow discounts them. These sources are not what you would expect for such a new publication, and the fact that they do exist–and in this early stage–implies the subject is likely notable and will likely continue to become more notable. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 02:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above commenters. The story on BBC News is an indicator that this is notable, and likely to receive more coverage in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 22:20, 1 August 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.