Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 7 January 2018

The_Sentinel_(Staffordshire)

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

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)[reply]
The Article reads like an advert with out citing references in multiple sections. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
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)[reply]
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 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 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)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable local newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 **Another newly created account, the user of which claims to be an academic, commenting on this AfD.  Funny that. [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] ([[User talk:Mattythewhite|talk]]) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Clearly notable local newspaper. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 16:49, 3 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.