Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benwick Bugle

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 delete. I'm afraid I did not place much weight on the keep !vote as it did not present an argument on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidance. SwisterTwister's suggestion that the Bugle might be mentioned in the Benwick article is a helpful one and can be considered as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benwick Bugle

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

Non-notable magazine, it's just an occasionally published magazine for a small village. All the sources are primary, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as virtually no reliable sources and falls well short of WP:NMEDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's only occasional - could provide good level of information for this community. I see it does have merit.BenWick74 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)— BenWick74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to the community Benwick's article as this can be mentioned there but this may be questionably by itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I've undone the closure as this was closed a day early!, There's no consensus to delete nor keep atm. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it should not be deleted. It is a local magazine and gives readers enough information which is well-sourced. In addition, there are no advertisement-like statements.--Egeymi (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: Neither of these are reasons or evidence it passes WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Also, it isn't well-sourced like you claim, since all the sources are primary sources- no reliable sources to show any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with apologies to Benwick. I really mean that. I love and respect small-town newspapers and small, focused interest publications of all kinds. Reason is that by the publications own account, it does not run edited journalism, so it does not qualify as a newspaper. Although this publication exists, sources fail to support notability. Notability sourced to disinterested, reliable, secondary sources is required at Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 11 February 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.