- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Auseklis (newspaper) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced and wasn't edited once since its creation in 2010. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator of this page, Starzynka, was blocked in 2010 for being a sockpuppet account. Levvy owo? 15:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- ...and considering the fact that the page has actually not been touched since 2010 except to put an AfD template, I'm going to have to concur with GN and say delete. Levvy owo? 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete 1 sentence unsourced stub with 1 edit from a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation -- DannyS712 ( talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment: Just noticed this, the subject and the article are so bland that the folks over at WikiProject Latvia didn't bother to give it any importance rating. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with the argument that the poster's misbehavior is moot, as their singular sentence is so sparse one can hardly argue it is promotional. It was, however, extremely inaccurate. The paper seems to have a very interesting history as the first Marxist periodical published in the Latvian language, dating back to the 1800s. It also looks to be an interesting glimpse into the history of Latvian American immigrants, a group no doubt lacking some coverage on Wikipedia due to systemic bias. If the sourcing seems sparse, a redirect to List of newspapers in Latvia would also be logical from where I'm standing. 24.84.14.158 ( talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for improving the article, however having a somewhat short history involving certain diaspora still doesn't make it notable per WP:NEWSNOTE. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- More on this: checking the two book references, it doesn't seem that there's any substantial mention of Auseklis; rather, it's a passing and non-substantial mention (at the most, searching its name only brings up 1 or 2 results in the entire book). Therefore, I do believe it fails WP:GNG. Levvy owo? 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Question: When will this be over with? This AFD's been open for 2 weeks now and no active contributions since the relisting a week ago. I'd like this to be over.
Levvy
owo?
16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Levityn, some articles take a bit longer to delete than others. Consensus simply needs to be sorted out. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 03:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Lack of sources decides the case against inclusion. We get hits for Miķelis Krogzemis' pen name but not for the paper.- The Gnome ( talk) 10:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete; fails WP:N/ WP:GNG due to lack of sources. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination and particularly the lack of verifiability of the topic. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Auseklis (newspaper) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced and wasn't edited once since its creation in 2010. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator of this page, Starzynka, was blocked in 2010 for being a sockpuppet account. Levvy owo? 15:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- ...and considering the fact that the page has actually not been touched since 2010 except to put an AfD template, I'm going to have to concur with GN and say delete. Levvy owo? 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete 1 sentence unsourced stub with 1 edit from a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation -- DannyS712 ( talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment: Just noticed this, the subject and the article are so bland that the folks over at WikiProject Latvia didn't bother to give it any importance rating. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with the argument that the poster's misbehavior is moot, as their singular sentence is so sparse one can hardly argue it is promotional. It was, however, extremely inaccurate. The paper seems to have a very interesting history as the first Marxist periodical published in the Latvian language, dating back to the 1800s. It also looks to be an interesting glimpse into the history of Latvian American immigrants, a group no doubt lacking some coverage on Wikipedia due to systemic bias. If the sourcing seems sparse, a redirect to List of newspapers in Latvia would also be logical from where I'm standing. 24.84.14.158 ( talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for improving the article, however having a somewhat short history involving certain diaspora still doesn't make it notable per WP:NEWSNOTE. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- More on this: checking the two book references, it doesn't seem that there's any substantial mention of Auseklis; rather, it's a passing and non-substantial mention (at the most, searching its name only brings up 1 or 2 results in the entire book). Therefore, I do believe it fails WP:GNG. Levvy owo? 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Question: When will this be over with? This AFD's been open for 2 weeks now and no active contributions since the relisting a week ago. I'd like this to be over.
Levvy
owo?
16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Levityn, some articles take a bit longer to delete than others. Consensus simply needs to be sorted out. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 03:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Lack of sources decides the case against inclusion. We get hits for Miķelis Krogzemis' pen name but not for the paper.- The Gnome ( talk) 10:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete; fails WP:N/ WP:GNG due to lack of sources. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination and particularly the lack of verifiability of the topic. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.