Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire)


 * 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. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The_Sentinel_(Staffordshire)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * The Article has had multiple issue tags since 2012 without any improvement despite multiple attempts to rectify. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Article reads like an advert with out citing references in multiple sections. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Article makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, no references, and nothing can be found when searching for references from third parties. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that this Article has been nominated before and tagged with numerous major issues for 6 years with out being able to improve it seems unlikely that this Article is in keeping with Wikipedia’s standards. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — Stefan Sperl (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I do not see how any of the points above invalidate the article's claim to notability. The Sentinel is a prominent local newspaper and newspapers with its circulation seem to be regarded as notable.  The article should be improved, not deleted. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mattythewhite. AfD is not cleanup. I see that the nom has gone out of their way to make the article look worse than it is, with over-tagging at the top of the page and going OTT with CN tags through-out the article to make their point.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Given that the first issues tags from 2012 are will unresolved despite many clean ups and the article reads as an advert full of opinion rather than a factual entry into an international encyclopedia it would be very hard to see this as notable by any stretch of the imagination. I would suggest adding the title as a section or mention on a parent page for regional papers from the country rather than a page in its own right.LewisChu (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Struck above comment from blocked sockmaster per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This article hardly meets the standards of Wikipedia and as mentioned above these issues have been on going since 2012 with multiple attempts at clean up and correction. With regards to notability; I would agree that this article should be a subsection or note on a list or parent page instead of an entire page itself. DanielLSmail (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — DanielLSmail (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — DanielLSmail (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks to be some sockpuppetry going on here. Look at the similarity in comments of the nominator and the two editors !voting delete, and in their user pages. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Now now gents, let’s keep things factual. Looks like some fair points poorly put across from both the keep and delete votes. Looks fair that this is clearly a genuine newspaper no doubt. Also looks clear that it is a p*** poor effort at making an impartial and factual page with references. If the article can be fixed and made decent then there is no reason to delete it. If it can’t be fixed then yeah, merge, delete, whatever’s best. BenWilks (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — BenWilks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — BenWilks (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A lot of participation from inexperienced users and a couple of highly experienced users making WP:AADDs, so another week of discussion might help.
 * Comment: I've removed the disproportionate number of individual "citation needed" tags which were recently added. As Wikipedia's guidelines on tag bombing make clear, there is no need to tag every single unsourced statements when a page or section hatnote will suffice. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Suggested: Wouldn't it be easier and cleaner to just merge this page to become part of the Trinity_Mirror page? It seems a little messy and unnecessary on it's own, but also would seem unfair to remove it entirely. Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another newly created account, the user of which claims to be an academic, commenting on this AfD. Funny that. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable local newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To expand, an old and wide-circulation local newspaper covering a major city and several other important towns. There is no good argument whatsoever for deleting this article and many common sense reasons to keep it. Also clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The page's own talk page provides a list of proofs and edits that this is a paid article, meaning that professional writers were paid to write the page with PR in mind.SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — SamanthaFinmore (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  First edit, not only edit, someone is clearly spamming this page with ridiculous tags and nonsense comments. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)  — SamanthaFinmore (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 13:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing an article about a newspaper dating from 1854 is seldom a problem, and we are here well passed GNG based on a review of available sources. The other problems mentioned in the nomination are basically all WP:SURMOUNTABLE. On a side note: Apart from 1 !vote, all other delete/merge opinions have been made by accounts created after this discussion was opened. Also, this is not the third discussion, the article has never been up at AFD before and should be moved from its current location at Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire) (3rd nomination) to Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire). Sam Sailor 13:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I started an SPI case. Sam Sailor 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All editors not voting "keep" have been CU blocked. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 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.