Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives

Wikipedia is not a WP:Link farm. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:LINKFARM applies to articles. The candidate is not an article, but a resource page in the Wikipedia namespace. And a useful one, too. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as the creator). It is a research tool for editors and the list is not in the mainspace. Now with free access to Newspapers.com via Wikipedia (which does not give access to the premium tier of service) I am less reliant on individual archives. I use online newspaper archives on a daily basis to find obituaries of the more obscure notable people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A valuable research tool for Wikipedia's editors to help improve and expand the encyclopedia. This is evidenced in part by the 20,951 page views the page has received in the last thirty days as of this post. This averages out to almost 700 page views per day. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A resource page in Wikipedia space providing a list of resources to aid referencing is useful and aligned with the goals of building a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. -- Whpq (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've used this page over a hundred times, easy, and working in a municipal archives, I've recommended this page to the public. Also, +1 to User:Northamerica1000's comment about its frequent use. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not in article space and a very useful resource. Flat Out (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I, and many of my acquaintances, consult this particular Wikipedia page weekly.

Rather, I would like Wikipedia to more closely monitor those whose main purpose on the site seems to be deleting- rather than "fixing"- images. texts, and entries.

They often seem to contribute little new material, and their deletions wind up driving away both contributors and users, many of whom used to financially support the Wikipedia site. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an internal projectspace directory to assist editors in finding reliable sources, not a mainspace article. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 2 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.