Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Concrete Herald

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. The arguements are rather weak however regardless consensus is that it's notable and meets gng. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Concrete Herald

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

Fails WP:CORP. Small town newspaper. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in the present stub form, the article doesn't immediately provide absolutely independent sources. However, these sources are already presented in Charles Dwelley article (which you sadly nominated for deletion for a different reason), and I plan to incorporate these sources into the article shortly. In addition, this is not a small town newspaper. It's a newspaper that is published in a small town, but serves half of Skagit County. The newspaper was established in 1901, IMHO sufficiently long ago to second guess a hasty deletion nomination. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an immediate and an easy update to introduce independent sources. I believe I can add even more next week -- I fancy that for the publication with such extensive history, it shouldn't be hard. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Despite being a "small town newspaper", its resurrection was notable enough to be reported by The Seattle Times. clpo13_(talk) 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonable well sourced. In addition, WP:OUTCOMES for comparative AfDs closed as keep if reliable secondary sources are available. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domovina (newspaper) where the result was keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems notable to me. Anup [Talk] 03:58, 27 October 2016 (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.