Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Bazaar

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Bazaar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the five references in the article, one is a deadlink and three are to the Russian Bazaar itself. Therefore, I am not seeing a case for notability here

p 21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete As per above - sngle original source as main reference to article, no evidence availabile on internet as to it being noteable as per
WP:NOTE seems clear cut to me on the evidence available. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I'm having trouble finding any coverage in reliable sources, beyond the one New York Times ref in the article. I tend towards keeping articles about newspapers, as I think it's valuable for Wikipedia to provide coverage of its own sources, or potential sources, but unless independent reliable sources can be found this can't be kept. Pburka (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sympathetic to Pburka's reluctance, and have spent a fair bit of time trying to look for something, anything, that would get us the second half of
WP:GNG, over and above the NYT mention. One highbeam article has a mention, but sourced to a journalist from the paper. What convinced me toward deletion was that not a single library save the Library of Congress claims to collect this newspaper, per WorldCat. I also tried the usual searches on Gweb, Gbooks, Gscholar, and Highbeam. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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.