Deletion of The Northern Standard

Comment: nbsp; Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure identifies as a speedy-keep criterion, "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption..."&nbsp; We know from the history of contributions that the nominator has only previously edited Wikipedia for one session of 40 edits in three hours.&nbsp; We have a nomination argument that recognizes the relationship between the GNG and one of the SNGs, so the editor is not a newbie.&nbsp; Further, we see that no effort was made in preparing the nomination&mdash;there was no work done on the article, no discussion on the talk page, and no record of any searches attempted |before involving the rest of the community and the admins.&nbsp; Relatedly based on the lack of documented research, peedy keep reason #1 applies, the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion.&nbsp; The passing mentions of WP:CORP and WP:GNG are refuted at  as "arguments not to make at a deletion discussion", i.e., there is no explanation of ''why'' the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.&nbsp; And as per  policy, a nomination for deletion based on policy refutes the alternatives to deletion, i.e., why is the reliable material, if any, so objectionable that it must be hidden from public view, rather than merged to another article?&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:S||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:ATD)