Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spokane Daily Chronicle

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. MBisanz talk 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane Daily Chronicle

Spokane Daily Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Frankly what we have does not establish notability, and a quick search has not thrown up much better.

Maybe a merge with the The Spokesman-Review. (not that there is anything to merge). Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a historical newspaper that ended before the Internet era. Still, there are plenty of online sources referencing it. A merge to Spokesman-Review might not be inappropriate, but that's a merge discussion topic. This is a deletion discussion, and on the question of whether to delete it entirely or not (which the nom does not even propose), the article should be kept. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it operated independently for decades (in competition with the Spokesman-Review, no less) and could easily be expanded using local resources. SounderBruce 05:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per
    primary
    ) is from the Spokane Chronicle (calls into question the article title) "Its' Been Great...", and the third source from the "Seattle Times" is titled Gordon Coe, Serial Rapist's Father, Dies At 82, that has nothing to do with the subject.
    • Special note: The options at an AFD are not just limited to "keep" or "delete". Other options are Redirect, Delete then Redirect (destroys history), Transwiki, and Userfy. All but "keep" !votes are essentially alternatives for deletion, meaning the article does not warrant a stand-alone page, and the nominators comment certainly provide another option even if weak merge. **Please** refrain from tainting this AFD (even if unintentional) with false comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments" So how about you all adding all these sources and actually establish notability?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major daily newspaper for more than 100 years. While it was owned by the same parent company it was independent from the city of Spokane's other daily. The beautiful 1920s seven story building built for the paper by a prominent architect remains. Plenty of sources discuss the owner (Henry Cowles), his company Cowles Company, his family that edited and owned the paper in subseqient years, the rivalry between the coty's papers, major incidents such as the manager editor's son turning out to be a serial rapist. Many many Wikipedia articles cite the paper. It is a notable and reliable independent source with a long and storied history. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Not one of the "keep" !votes have a basis of anything relating to policy, nor have addressed any of my policy based rationale. Some links were added and I reviewed and fixed all of them. The last one, a Spokesman-Review primary source, does provide that a writer worked and wrote for the Spokane Daily Chronicle for 45 years. The second to last, a Seattle Times article, gives a newspaper man's account of 40 years service, Twenty-six years as The Spokane Daily Chronicle's city editor, and six years as managing editor. The subject is a particular newspaper and not the people that worked there.
Why does an AFD have to be a "do or die" scenario with almost never any collaboration? Of the seven sources now listed, the UPI source is about the merger, a research paper about an affiliated radio station, and a Seattle Times obituary about the father of a serial rapist. That gives us one non-primary source (UPI) having to do with the subject (the merger) and the rest primary sources that we are not supposed to use for notability.
I would consider a "keep" as Spokane Daily Chronicle (historical newspaper) since some sourcing was found that the subject was merged, and be content with "there could be sources out there". The alternative is that a closing admin (or editor) will have to overlook policy and keep as is "because we like it?" or just be bold and keep with a title change as a historical article if there is no further discussions. I am not as concerned about "What links here" as I am sure a merge would protect that. The options are 1)- to ignore policies and guidelines and keep as is using basic vote count over !votes, 2)- merge to the now current article, 2)-keep with a name change, or 3)- delete. I would be willing to work on such a historical article otherwise "good luck". Otr500 (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and notabiloty based on its legacy, that it's extensively cited, for its role in the lives of various notable people and events, and for its importance in the history of Washington's 2nd largest city are all policy based reasons to keep. Your suggestion of a "historical" entry is novel. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thank you for your thanks and the polite way of dismissing my research as false or a lie. Maybe a closing admin will add a new element we can refer to as notability by association, of all the deceased editors. I am sure since the newspaper no longer exists (remember it was merged) we can call it "novel" to try to keep an article as historical.
Any "legacy" mentioned should be evident by
refbombing
does not denote notability.
I do not mind the "do or die" scenario and possibly, as stated, policies can be overlooked, or even some narrow exclusion can be invoked that I haven't considered. A 111-year-old newspaper that ended in a merger, can be covered in a section of the now
newspaper reporting venue. Non-policy based comments, or non-policy rebuttals to valid policy arguments, is simply I just like it rational and probably should be avoided. Otr500 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spokane_Daily_Chronicle&oldid=1070377785"