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 The World Spectator and redirect Kevin Weedmark. There is a consensus that the article on The World-Spectator should be kept. While the formatting is atypical for a multi-AfD, editors in the recognized that this was a two-part question and evaluated both the article for The World Spectator and that for Kevin Weedmark. Editors found no evidence that Weedmark had significant coverage; WP:BLARing his page to that of the newspaper is a suitable WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World-Spectator (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)

I will also be nominating Kevin Weedmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion, as both articles share the same problems, and also have a heavy content overlap.

Both these articles were created by a clear SPA, Kevkevkev, and neither of them have any claim of notability. The World Spectator is cited to one source, and this citation is an example of WP:SYNTH, as the paper isn't even mentioned by name in the given source, and the BLP has no sources at all. I'm unable to verify any of the awards that either Kevin or his paper claimed to have received, nor any in-depth secondary coverage. This is a long-standing piece of self-promotion that needs to go. Loafiewa (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bothKeep The World-Spectator, and delete Kevin Weedmark. The only reliable sources I can find on Kevin Weedmark are a couple news articles ([1][2]) which on their own do not establish notability. As for the newspaper, I can't find any sources and the only source currently in the article is an archived Canadian government article which doesn't even mention it. Edit -- since User:Sdkb has found some sources on the newspaper, I've changed my !vote to keep. However, there still aren't any sources for the bio so it should be deleted.>>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like Wgullyn, I initially struggled to find any sources for this paper, but I would normally expect a regional newspaper serving multiple communities with a 138-year history and various awards to be notable, so I dug deeper. Thankfully, Newspapers.com turned up a number of SIGCOV articles:

1. Longman, Harold (24 July 1957). "Moosomin weekly oldest paper". The Leader-Post. p. 2. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
2. "Moosomin paper up for national award". The Leader-Post. 19 July 1989. p. 5. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
3. McKay, Burt (22 October 1984). "Moosomin World-Spectator celebrates 100 years". The Leader-Post. p. 10. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
4. "Oldest paper best in class". The Leader-Post. 12 September 1966. p. 2. Retrieved 18 February 2022.

There are several other slightly more SIGCOV-marginal articles, such as this one. The only remaining concern is that these are all from one other newspaper, the The Leader-Post, but, well, how many newspapers can we really expect there to be in Saskatchewan, especially when we have to exclude the one most likely to cover Moosomin-related topics, i.e. the World-Spectator itself? On an IAR level, this is clearly an important topic, and one we are likely to use as a source if we cover the region, so it serves readers best to keep it around. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the newspaper as having received reasonable coverage for being a publication itself and a relatively important topic, encyclopedically speaking. Redirect Weedmark to the paper's article as not having received sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:15, 12 March 2022 (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.