Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hua Shang Daily

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hua Shang Daily

Non-notable defunct Chinese newspaper. Possible copyvio for the picture? Radiant! 11:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• verify, and keep if the newspaper existed. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to nanfang daily. Nateji77 14:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no longer exists, not notable. Megan1967 23:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The newspaper does still exist, according to a mention from Bloomberg [1]. Picture copyvio is not an issue as it's not handled under VfD. You might want to see Wikipedia:Images for deletion for that. --Andylkl 19:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, think I'd vote to keep it. --Andylkl 05:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant! on what basis do you claim it to be non-notable? Just that notability isn't established? If, indeed, it is defunct, that shouldn't have much bearing on the matter: an encyclopedia isn't only about what exists right now. (If another newspaper is using the same name, the article should discuss both.) Keep: I tend to assume newspapers are notable, unless someone has a good argument to the contrary. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, yes. I should have written 'notability not established'. I assumed it was one of those small-circulation mostly-advertising papers. Especially since big newspapers rarely become defunct. But since that was mistaken, keep. Radiant! 13:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Predecessor to the biggest newspaper in Guangzhou (off the top of my head circulation of 3 million), was a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong until 1949 until the whole thing was moved to Guangzhou and renamed Nanfang Daily. Whether this needs a merger is an argument for another day. By the way the pic is from here Pic link on the homepage of Nanfang Daily. --JuntungWu 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.