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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (+ WP:HEY). (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelante (1902) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has existed as a stub, more-or-less unchanged, for more than a decade. The only information this article provides is that the newspaper existed for less than a year and that it had a rivalry with a socialist newspaper in the same city. The cited sources give only passing mentions of the paper, and I haven't been able to find anything else on this newspaper (although that may be complicated by the fairly generic name of the newspaper). It seems to me that this article fails to meet notability standards for periodicals. Short of merging the trivial details in this article into the one on La Voz del Pueblo, I don't see any good targets for merging/redirecting this, so I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Social science, and Spain. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia. If it were an essay repository, then the argument that this article article has existed as a stub, more-or-less unchanged, for more than a decade would be a valid reason for deletion; but it is not. When people are doing research, an encyclopaedia that allows the user to look up things like Adelante is useful. We need to be aware of recentism (a.k.a. nowism), which produces an article imbalance. If this newspaper had existed in 2022-23 there would be far more online sources readily available to editors seeking to improve the article. But with a newspaper that existed in 1902-03, most of those sources only exist in paper or microfilm format, and can only be found in the real world, and then only with a lot of time and effort.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for being a publication that disappeared 122 years ago, it does appear referenced in a lot of later works. It is quite easy to find more material to expand the article, I added two references now and will add a few more shortly and expand the article. --Soman (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - Going to go ahead and withdraw this, as Soman has put together enough sources for the article to convince me this newspaper is notable enough; that the early works of Diego Martínez Barrio were published in the newspaper display its notability to me. Thanks for putting in the work to expand the article, it's a lot more informative now. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2025 (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.