Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbeidernes blad (2nd nomination)

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 merge‎ to List of defunct newspapers of Norway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeidernes blad

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This is the second nomination, as the first closed with no consensus. The original deletion rationale was: "Painfully obscure, this newspaper only existed for four months in 1898. None of the sources deal with the newspaper in a substantial way."

There were two keep votes, which were exactly that, votes. One stated that "The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication", which does not touch upon policy at all. The other stated that "The article is informative ,it can be made a stub article instead of deleting it". Aside from it already being a stub, being informative is not a policy either.

One user asked for "translation of the key sources", but I'm opining that there are no key sources sufficient for Wikipedia guidelines. Sure, the facts are verifiable from catalogue sources such as this and this. But catalogue info is not enough since Wikipedia is not a directory. This history of labour movement newspapers from 1935 spends a whole four sentences on Arbeidernes blad, and this 1923 history of the city spends less: three sentences. Worst of all are the current sources in the article, which fall very short of demands and are passing mentions.

It could be merged to its successor, had it not been equally short-lived. There is no shortage of newspapers in Norway that lasted for a year or less. Not all of them, or rather very few of them, are notable. The first lasting workers' newspaper in Ålesund was in fact Nybrott (Ålesund newspaper), where Arbeidernes blad could warrant a mention in a section about forerunners.

To sum up the above, Arbeidernes blad fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG and there is a lack of WP:ATD. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication. Users seeking information about Arbeidernes blad can currently find such information at this article rather than finding nothing. Doremo (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm stunned that the nomination is actually longer than the article. Is there anything it could be possibly merged with? E. g. as a summary in an article on the history of press in Norway or the history of the city? If not then I guess it can be kept if it is important to the history of the city or local press (as the nominator points out there were many short-lived publications in Norway)? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged to Nybrott (Ålesund newspaper) if it existed. Maybe even to Sunnmøre Arbeideravis although that is more of a stretch. In the city article I think it would be WP:UNDUE, and there is no article about the local press. Geschichte (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doremo Do you have a policy-based argument? Your vote thoroughly fails WP:ATA. Geschichte (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is only common-sense based. Wikipedia is probably the only place online where this information about this publication can be found in one place in English, and just deleting it doesn't help or serve anyone's interests. It simply makes access to information disappear. Doremo (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not create a broad article on history of newspapers of Ålesund where all these bits and pieces could be collected, with suitable redirects? --Ouro (blah blah) 13:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that suggestion; my only objection is to simple deletion. Destroying information (or access to it) helps nobody. Doremo (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are knowledgeable on the subject then start this article and start putting material there. Start writing. Be WP:BOLD! --Ouro (blah blah) 13:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment (and the suggestion), but I have no expertise on the topic. I simply translated the English WP article from the Norwegian WP article Arbeidernes blad (and added some sources). Doremo (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say that's a good start. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Four lines about a 100 yr old newspaper doesn't say notability. I can't find mention if it, could be a brief mention in the "History of newspapers in Alesund" if someone wanted to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on the page to show notability, nothing in the previous AfD and nothing offered here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is possible that this is a datapoint in a historical page of media in Norway, that doesn't somehow justify a page in and of itself. JMWt (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, History, and Norway. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how's List of defunct newspapers of Norway as a possible merge target? Right now it's just a bare list, but it could just as easily be a proper list article with brief descriptions. -- asilvering (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good merge target. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merger with a redirect. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of defunct newspapers of Norway. The newspaper itself is definitely not notable, and shouldn't be kept as per Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. However a merge is a perfectly acceptable WP:ATD. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested to List of defunct newspapers of Norway. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of defunct newspapers of Norway]. Formalizing my suggestion above. -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2024 (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.