On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:43:53 -0800, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
wrote:
As I recall I recently had a minor altercation with JzG
himself over
this, where he speedy-deleted one of Suriname's leading-circulation
newspapers ([[De Ware Tijd]]), which article had existed since December
2005 until he deleted it last week. When I undeleted and contested that
"one of the two leading newspapers in Suriname" could possibly be
considered to not even be a *assertion* notability, he retorted that
Suriname's population is only 5% of London's.
Which it is. And the circulation of the paper is around 10,000, I'm
told, which is tiny. And the article was unsourced and lacked a
single substantive claim of significance, other than the (uncited)
claim of being the biggest fish in an incredibly small pond.
To contextualise, this paper has a smaller circulation than my local
free sheet, and I live in a fairly ordinary sized town.
The solution is to find independent sources which talk about the
paper. I'm afraid I'm not very sympathetic to claims of notability
in deletion debates which are not followed through with actual
tangible and verifiable claims of notability in the article.
We now have two independent sources, I see - one is 404 and the
other looks like a passing mention in a gazetteer. Obviously since
you know so much about the subject, you'll find it trivially easy to
find some independent analysis of the subject and add it to the
article. I look forward to seeing that. Or is it really too much
to ask that the English Wikipedia actually provide some usable
English sources to back up an article?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG