Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Northern Standard


 * 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Northern Standard

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable local union newspaper, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, only ref given is a call number listing showing the publication existed. Mantes (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many references at GNews and GBooks show this paper's significance in N.T. history: among other things, for a considerable length of time it was the only paper in Darwin, and it took a strong pro-Communist line that led to libel lawsuits, police raids, until it finally went out of business after the advent of Rupert Murdoch's Northern Territory News.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the NT, knows that this newspaper was important. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Deletion process identifies as a speedy-keep criterion, "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption..."  We know from the history of contributions that the nominator has only previously edited Wikipedia for one session of 40 edits in three hours.  We have a nomination argument that recognizes the relationship between the GNG and one of the SNGs, so the editor is not a newbie.  Further, we see that no effort was made in preparing the nomination&mdash;there was no work done on the article, no discussion on the talk page, and no record of any searches attempted before involving the rest of the community and the admins.  Relatedly based on the lack of documented research, WP:Speedy keep reason #1 applies, the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion.  The passing mentions of WP:CORP and WP:GNG are refuted at WP:VAGUEWAVE as "arguments not to make at a deletion discussion", i.e., there is no explanation of why the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.  And as per WP:ATD policy, a nomination for deletion based on policy refutes the alternatives to deletion, i.e., why is the reliable material, if any, so objectionable that it must be hidden from public view, rather than merged to another article?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is not applicable. Neither is there an indication that the nomination is through malicious intentions— may be an SPA, but that, in itself, does not invalidate the nomination—nor does Mantes fail to advance a deletion argument—Mantes cites "WP:CORP and WP:GNG". Whether or not s/he justifies his/her opinion is not germane. Goodvac (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2011 (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.