Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vardø Framtid

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vardø Framtid

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The newspaper is defunct, and not relevant, searching for it yields no results and cites only a single source. Submitting for Wikipedia:Notability Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded the article with relevant material from Norwegian WP. Doremo (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and
WP:ATD, particularly given this one's founder. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is a nice short article, with sources that I can't read but look to me to be sufficient. And it's about a newspaper, for which in general it is often difficult to find coverage about them from other publications, as is covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, an essay about notability of newspapers which User:Peteforsyth recently notified me about. In general we need for Wikipedia to cover newspapers; i think we should be a gazetteer about them, because we need ourselves to know about their qualities as sources. Here, it is useful to have this article to inform any perspective about usage of this newspaper as a source, anywhere else. ("Oh, okay, that was a short-lived commie rag, perhaps a good source about X but not likely to be objective about Y"). And again it is a good, interesting short article ( i like it). --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Doremo's expansion and do not in any way merge, the #Press section would be severely bloated. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2019 (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.