Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/North Norfolk News - Knowledge

Source đź“ť

257:
Notability. The subject is a well-established (since 1940) weekly newspaper covering an area with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Although there may be no “significant coverage” of this newspaper from other sources online, you have to consider that a major news source in its area, it is far more often
278:
You are using North Norfolk News own website in the article is a clear case of primary sourcing which should be avoid. Along with their twitter account and the parent company Archant are also primary sources. The circular is small, and the fact you work for North Norfolk News is a clear
258:
providing coverage of other topics, rather than being the subject of coverage itself. There are also many entries about newspapers of a similar or smaller size with few secondary sources on Knowledge, so for consistency, this entry should also be allowed:
200: 161: 194: 303: 323: 235:, there is no significant coverage for this local newspaper. The citations provided are purely primary and not secondary sources which is really required. 108: 93: 134: 129: 138: 121: 253:
I have now improved the entry citing a number of secondary sources. I disagree that this organisation does not fit the criteria of
215: 182: 88: 81: 17: 280: 102: 98: 176: 372: 40: 355: 335: 315: 296: 271: 244: 63: 172: 125: 222: 368: 36: 267: 58: 351: 331: 311: 208: 117: 69: 188: 259: 77: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
367:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
292: 284: 263: 254: 240: 232: 53: 347: 327: 307: 155: 346:
sufficient secondary sources given to establish notability for a local press. --
288: 236: 287:
in my opinion. However that is my opinion, need other people to weigh in.
363:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
260:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Weekly_newspapers_by_country
231:
Prod was removed to AfD. I just don't see how this passes
151: 147: 143: 207: 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 375:). No further edits should be made to this page. 322:Note: This discussion has been included in the 302:Note: This discussion has been included in the 304:list of News media-related deletion discussions 221: 8: 324:list of England-related deletion discussions 109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 321: 301: 7: 24: 283:. I still don't see this passing 94:Introduction to deletion process 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 356:10:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 336:11:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 316:11:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 297:10:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 272:07:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 245:18:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 64:22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 1: 84:(AfD)? Read these primers! 392: 365:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 281:WP:Conflict of Interest 82:Articles for deletion 118:North Norfolk News 70:North Norfolk News 338: 318: 99:Guide to deletion 89:How to contribute 383: 226: 225: 211: 159: 141: 79: 61: 56: 34: 391: 390: 386: 385: 384: 382: 381: 380: 379: 373:deletion review 168: 132: 116: 113: 76: 73: 59: 54: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 389: 387: 378: 377: 359: 358: 340: 339: 319: 299: 275: 274: 229: 228: 165: 112: 111: 106: 96: 91: 74: 72: 67: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 388: 376: 374: 370: 366: 361: 360: 357: 353: 349: 345: 342: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 320: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 277: 276: 273: 269: 265: 261: 256: 252: 249: 248: 247: 246: 242: 238: 234: 224: 220: 217: 214: 210: 206: 202: 199: 196: 193: 190: 187: 184: 181: 178: 174: 171: 170:Find sources: 166: 163: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 136: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114: 110: 107: 104: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 86: 85: 83: 78: 71: 68: 66: 65: 62: 57: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 364: 362: 343: 250: 230: 218: 212: 204: 197: 191: 185: 179: 169: 75: 49: 47: 31: 28: 195:free images 55:‑Scottywong 264:SCAnderson 369:talk page 348:Whiteguru 328:Shellwood 308:Shellwood 37:talk page 371:or in a 285:WP:NCORP 255:WP:NCORP 251:Comments 233:WP:NCORP 162:View log 103:glossary 39:or in a 201:WP refs 189:scholar 135:protect 130:history 80:New to 173:Google 139:delete 344:Keep: 289:Govvy 237:Govvy 216:JSTOR 177:books 156:views 148:watch 144:links 60:|  || 16:< 352:talk 332:talk 312:talk 293:talk 268:talk 241:talk 209:FENS 183:news 152:logs 126:talk 122:edit 50:keep 223:TWL 160:– ( 354:) 334:) 326:. 314:) 306:. 295:) 270:) 262:. 243:) 203:) 154:| 150:| 146:| 142:| 137:| 133:| 128:| 124:| 52:. 350:( 330:( 310:( 291:( 266:( 239:( 227:) 219:· 213:· 205:· 198:· 192:· 186:· 180:· 175:( 167:( 164:) 158:) 120:( 105:) 101:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
‑Scottywong
|  ||
22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
North Norfolk News

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
North Norfolk News
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑