Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewspaperArchive.com

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewspaperArchive.com

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

Not notable website and company. ...William 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use this website a lot for researches for articles on companies and biographies. A majority of the references I use come from this site. I find their boolean search functions very useful. This feature is entirely not-existent on Newspapers.com. I signed up for an account through Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. I see that the article link get redirected to Ancestry.com. Many state library website link to them. Also, deleting this page would create a lot of redlinks. See:WhatLinksHere. Looking at WP:N, I don't see a good argument that this article is NOT notable. I agree that there needs to be more or better citations. It just needs someone to take the time to find better refernces. Nyth83 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I changed my mind. Perhaps it would be better to copy any useful information in this page to a sub-section of Heritage Microfilm, Inc. and then create redirects to avoid creating redlinks. I am also confused about the relationship with Heritage Archives, Inc.. The article about the web site says this it is owned by Heritage Microfilm but both company articles say they own the website. There may need to be a consolidation of the the two company articles also. The Heritage Archives is very short and probably lacks notability also. I looks like in may just be a division of Heritage Microfilm anyway and should be merged into a subsection of the Heritage Archives article. Nyth83 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Addendum Just found this news story about the site and companies: Under Investigation Nyth83 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Addendum 2 I just did some BOLD editing and copied the information from both the NewspaperArchive.com article and the Heritage Archives, Inc. stub article into new sections in Heritage Microfilm, Inc.. The Microfilm article still needs a fair amount of cleanup but the other two articles can be deleted. I just do not know how to handle the redirects. Nyth83 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyth83: I've reverted your attempt; the closer will get it if it ends up closing that way. Ansh666 07:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used "Newspaper Archive" for several years while researching a book, and found it very useful and generally accurate.

The problem of mis-dated articles arises from the difficulty of OCRing old papers. The quality has improved with improvements in the technique.

I think we can maintain this page -- but I would add that, since I ended my subscription to "Newspaper Archive" they have continued to send me emails, even though I click on "subscribe" each time.

gpeterw (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The responses above amount to saying "It is useful." This would be helpful if we were debating whether it is useful and verifiable, but being useful does not really tell us whether it is notable. Do reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of it? Does it somehow satisfy WP:ORG? Edison (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 21 September 2014 (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.