Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online newspaper

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 and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online newspaper

This is basically someone's personal essay on the phenomenon that newspapers have websites that allow people to read their articles online. >Radiant< 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's plenty to say on the subject of on-line newspapers:
  • Herre van Oostendorp and Christof van Nimwegen (September 1998). "Locating Information in an Online Newspaper". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4 (1). 
  • Foo Yeuh Peng, Naphtali Irene Tham, and Hao Xiaoming (1999). "Trends in Online Newspapers: A Look at the US Web". Newspaper Research Journal 20. 
  • Wendy Dibean and Bruce Garrison (2001). "How Six Online Newspapers Use Web Technologies". Newspaper Research Journal 22. 
  • Jane B. Singer (1997). "Changes and Consistencies: Newspaper Journalists Contemplate Online Future". Newspaper Research Journal 18. 
  • McAdams, Melinda (July 1995). "Inventing an Online Newspaper". Interpersonal Computing and Technology 3 (3): 64–90. 
  • Hsiang Iris Chyi and George Sylvie (1998). "Competing With Whom? Where? And How? A Structural Analysis of the Electronic Newspaper Market". Journal of Media Economics 11 (2): 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327736me1102_1. 
  • CARINA IHLSTRÖM, MARIA ÅKESSON, an STIG NORDQVIST (2004-07-07). "FROM PRINT TO WEB TO E-PAPER — THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGNING THE E-NEWSPAPER" (PDF).
  • Hanluain, D. O. (2004-02-13). "Free content becoming thing of the past for UK's online newspaper sites". Online Journalism Review. 
  • Hsiang Iris Chyi and Dominic L. Lasorsa (2002). "An Explorative Study on the Market Relation Between Online and Print Newspapers". Journal of Media Economics 15 (2): 91–106. doi:10.1207/S15327736ME1502_2. 
• That's just for starters. Fixing the article is a matter of removing any original research and introducing material based upon the above and many other sources. Uncle G 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/rewrite It'd be fine with less original research and more sourcing Whilding87 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/clean-up Per above and from the references in the article it looks like this is a case for a cleanup instead of deletion. Would suggest keeping the article and discussing what parts need to be deleted or modified on the article's talk page. Dugwiki 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. --- RockMFR 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/rewrite per Uncle G. -- Black Falcon 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is very important to see the difference between blog and forum sites as to newspapers. Newspapers are written by professionals and are moving from hard copy to soft. This is a very impotent development for the industry. This below is some one who is not 100% as to what it is he/she is talking about. This is not 1 posters comments and this topic is very important! You have posts about online radio, online TV etc. It would be silly to remove it. Just look at the posters tag, that says it all! If electronic pager can stay, so can online news! It is people like this chap who has flagged this up who make Wikipedia loose its credibility.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin-jj (talk • contribs).
• Who posted this silly thing saying the online papers not being important? I am doing research about a UK based newspapers for a TV program later this year on the BBC. Very silly this. I found this site through google... well I know about it, but I have not used it until now. I was looking for a website I have been asked to do the background on and spotted that this site has information on. So logged on and the first thing I see is that things are to be deleted with out research being done. I will be adding this fact to our program notes. If wikipedia wants to be taken at face value, it should not allow the public to pick what is kept and not kept. The public should submit information and then staff on the site should check it out! I have spotted huge holes and lots of information being cut, due to it not fitting the editing system. This post should be kept as it is! I am not going back on here as it has lost credibility to me. I know what the facts are and this post is spot on. Lots of information, ok needs a bit of a clean up, but DO NOT delete, just because of that! --Fm-jessamine 19:49, 5 March 2007 (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.