Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Standard

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Standard

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

I'm placing this here because the language of the article seems to be a bit inflated, and carries with it a sort of self-promotional feel - and I'm thinking it's controversial enough where the notability of this page is at question. Could be wrong, but there's where I feel the controversy will lie. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've de-peacocked and tidied it up a bit. If there is to be controversy it should be on the quality of the sources, not the writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five sources are provided. The rival Torontoist admits its bias, and announces the launch as an unknown quantity. Masthead just reports the forthcoming launch. Source 3, Torontoist again, describes the original 1848 Standard newspaper. Playground is the website designer, so good evidence of what the site's goals were but no use for notability. Finally, Masthead proves that the Canadian Online Publishing Awards were given - one RS. So we don't yet have "multiple, reliable" sources. Fails WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a systemic bias by news media against their commercial rivals. It is reasons of this sort that give us some wiggle room in the notability guideline and prevent it from being a hard policy. We seem to have enough sourcing to confirm the essential facts and there seems to be no reason we can't maintain this as a non-promotional stub pending further expansion over time. Warden (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, is Wikipedia capable of such generous intelligence? Good to hear it. I agree that the basic facts of the site's existence are not in doubt, so why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an early newspaper in 19th century Toronto, it's eminently notable. I could care less about the 2010 use of the name on a website, but I've added two categories for the original paper. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2012 (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.