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 moved to Wikipedia space; see Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of online newspaper archives[edit]

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

This article is basically a mix of improper external links and generalized listcruft. Following WP:EL, much of the scope of this article would have to be removed, since the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to lead out of Wikipedia but rather to provide an encyclopedic overview of a particular topic. This EL cleanup would leave only an unverified laundry list remaining, which is problematic in itself. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links nor should it be used as a directory for topics such as this. While this material might be acceptable at a site such as DMOZ, it is beyond this project's scope and policies. Them From Space 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, violates WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOT a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from WP:NOT concerns, can you think of how many MILLIONS of newspaper archives there are on the internet, even if you only consider the major papers such as the New York Times? There is no way that a page like this could ever work on Wikipedia.--_LittleGordon 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. And because my state wasn't listed. (joke) —Mike Allen 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I never would have found the archive I was looking for if I hadn't found this page -ZelG 13:41 2 February 2010 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.141.238 (talk)

Edit Conflict See WP:NOT--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my statement to ZelG (68.105.141.238) just above.--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and she listens...to the sound...of....WP:NOT!--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting Afd this one. Just one thing Trust Me Throw, if we are talking about newspapers, wouldn't "she" read to the vision of WP:NOT instead of listen to the sound of it?--$$$BILLION DOLLARS$$$ 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Funny guy. lol :) It's a figure of speech, thus why "she" listens. And in case you are wondering the "she" is nobody in particular. Not me anyway, I am male. But I see what you mean. Again, lol :)--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess this one can be closed then? JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This could come in handy for research. I concur with Richard. —Mike Allen 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold. I like that.--Prodigy96 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (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.