Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligo Weekender

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. Keep, given work done on the article since its AFD nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Weekender

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, it is a newspaper but I cant find any notablility of it. It is just a small newspaper comapny that does not need a wikipedia page and the article itself is messy and when you read it sounds like someone copy and pasted it. Promotional article from the word choice to the overall feel.

'Currently we have over 21,000 Facebook followers and growing. It is a paid for tabloid newspaper costing €2.30 You will find it in homes and business premises throughout County Sligo as well as North Roscommon, North Leitrim and South Donegal and along the Mayo/Sligo border. The Sligo Weekender is honored to be a Six-time winner of a European Design Award, a title for which hundreds of newspapers across the EU compete for every year'.

This is literally copy and pasted and is promotional. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Companies, and Ireland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well there's this, not the most flattering coverage of the paper [1], [2] second is minor coverage. This appears to be about the newspaper [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this [4]. Seems like controversy seems to follow the paper around, but it's probably at GNG with these. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Still the article is written promotionally and the sources that you provided barely mention the newspaper.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d agree with User:Oaktree b; it’s Notable, given some of the controversies highlighted, also that it’s unusual in being an independent (and not an Independent) newspaper. I’d agree that the article needs a good clean-up, removal of promotional material and general fixing up. The.Q^(t)(c) 10:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In terms of the nomination, while the content was overtly promotional (in both tone and intent), deletion is not cleanup. In terms of the sources provided by Oaktree b I would note that only the RTÉ archive example contributes to notability. Otherwise, in my own WP:BEFORE, I have found more than a few pieces of coverage where the newspaper was sued (by people) or sanctioned (by the courts) for significant errors in reporting. However, the coverage of these issues, alone, does not "add up" to notability. All that being said I (also) found (and added) several sources which are largely independent of the subject and deal with the subject as a primary topic. In particular the RTÉ coverage of opening (1983/84), Irish Times coverage of sale to TCH (1996), Irish Examiner coverage of sale by TCH (2010). Mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following work by Guliolopez, I believe notability is achieved, albeit by a slim margin. SeoR (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2022 (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.