Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University)

The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University)

This article has now been twice speedily deleted (A7) as non-notable, and twice restored on the grounds that school newspapers are inherently notable. Unless there is a specific consensus that can be cited, relating not to schools in general but to school newspapers in particular, I can't for the life of me see how this can be considered notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources (and none that I found on a quick search), no indication of notability. Huon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/redirect - Student newspapers are inherently the publications of record for their communities - colleges and universities. This is inherently significant and, as such, fails to meet the A7 criteria. That this particular newspaper has never been noted by the nominator is neither here nor there. Nominator has, in fact, expressed no deletion rationale. At worst this is a merge/redirect candidate if more can't be found. I just found two sources and have added them, pointing to the fact that this newspaper has won awards from a national journalism organization, the Society of Professional Journalists. FCYTravis (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course it's not inherently notable. It's a student journal about which we have zero information whatsoever, but a bland statement which asserts its existence, full stop. Travis pulled the speedy tag I put on the article 14 months ago, but I was prepared to let him follow up with improvements. Since then, no additional content has been added, still no citations apart from the link to the self-published source. I think it's high time it was tossed out. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, since when was a citation to a major professional journalism organization considered self-published? What kind of tosh is this? FCYTravis (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also happen to strongly object to your apparent abuse of powers as an administrator, for twice restoring and article which was validly speedied. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a non-answer, but despite your impoliteness, I'll answer yours anyway. The speedies were patently invalid. Newspapers of any stripe have never, ever, ever been considered to fall under CSD A7. Read the policy - A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A newspaper is not an "organization," it is a publication. FCYTravis (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are getting a little too far away from civility, so let's just focus on the AfD at hand, ok? FCYTravis, Ohconfucius's first comment about a self-published source was made mere minutes after you added the citation to the professional journalism organization. It's quite likely that he had not seen that yet, and was instead referring to the link to the paper's own website. Ohconfucius, it may look like FCYTravis was unilaterally overriding four people (two speedy nominators, two deleting admins), but if he honestly believes that it did not qualify, then that would mean it had to be discussed prior to deletion (or at least prodded rather than speedied) and he was acting entirely in good faith. So let's all stay cool and just say that whether or not it qualified for speedy, that's over and this is an AfD. And whether or not it's notable due to its new sources, figuring that out is what this whole process is about. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry. That was indeed the case. When I saw more than one administrator had deleted it, I assumed the grounds to have been legitimate. And then I see Travis restored it not so long afterwards on both occasions, and once with only a cursory "This is not an A7 at all". When he then got heavy-handedly involved in defending an AfD whilst it was still a bland stub started me thinking it could be a potential conflict of interest or an abuse of power. Insofar as the mention of the awards which was added at about the same time I posted my comments, I think it's pushing the boat out a bit. So far, we have two citations for the awards which exist in so many variants across so many categories, one announcing a third place in best overall student journal in the weekly category, and another, which was a second place - I have some doubts whether these should be referred to as "multiple wins". Maybe "two pats on the back from professional journalists" would have been more appropriate? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Would support redirect. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I don't see either of you as having been all that uncivil, I was just concerned because some of the word choices made it look like things might be headed in that direction. I've seen personal disputes spiral out of control in the past, so I figured it would be better to comment and end it than to wait to see if it got to that point. I don't know either of you well enough to know if it even would have, so no personal offense is intended, just figured it would be safer to comment sooner rather than later. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether A7 applies is a borderline case. If the article is about the publication, then it may not be speedy deleted, but is utterly non-notable, because not "the newspaper" won any awards, but its staff and employees - the organization publishing that newspaper (and notability is not inherited). If the article is about the organization publishing the newspaper, it may be speedied (though the award is a claim to notability in my book, making A7 rather moot in any case). But in any case there's not a single significant coverage in independent sources. Claims of "inherent notability" are always dubious. Huon (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'd say Delete, but I think that's already implied by my nomination) This isn't a normal newspaper, it's a student newspaper. Any consensus about normal newspapers being automatically notable, if there is such a consensus, can hardly automatically apply to student newspapers. We're not talking about a national, state, or even city newspaper. We're talking about an extracurricular activity done by students. It sounds like this student newspaper is of higher quality and reputation than the one at my school, as it has received awards from a professional journalism organization. This information, added after my nomination and thus not taken into consideration when I or the two speedy deletion nominators made our nominations, does lend at least a bit of credibility to the claim that this newspaper in particular might be notable even if we cannot support the idea that every single student-written paper is automatically notable. These awards, however, appear to be not for journalism in general but for school newspapers in particular. Being prominent within a non-notable area does not grant notability. I, for one, am not convinced that this school newspaper is notable, even with the additional sources that have been added. It would take something more than being recognized among other student newspapers to grant it notability in spite of being a mere student newspaper. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would student newspapers not be encyclopedic? They are the first draft of history for their communities, which are often larger and more prominent than many "cities." You have provided no substantive reason to treat student newspapers at colleges and universities any different than professional newspapers. There is a large and well-populated Category:Student newspapers for good reason. FCYTravis (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about this; a student newspaper is neither inherently notable nor inherently nonencyclopedic? Given that nearly every professional journalist has worked at a student newspaper, student newspapers get a lot of press. A Google news search for this student paper shows that the local and national news organizations use it as a resource, and talk to its reporters. Each student newspaper should be evaluated on its merits. When I put the speedy tag on this one, it made no claim of notability whatsoever. Now it is three sentences long. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you add any sourced info to the article about local and national newspapers using it as a resource, then? That would definitely go a long way toward demonstrating that this school newspaper is notable, as it has influence beyond the contexts of its own school and school newspapers. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm the second person to tag it for speedy deletion. I would have preferred it gone; the info is better off in the NAU article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - School newspapers are not inherently encyclopedic for the same reason Resurrection Blues gets its own article but Monkey Island:The Play only gets a section within the article of the notable entity it's related to. Why professional sports teams get articles, but only some college sports teams do (Division I does, Division III does not). How could all school newspapers automatically be notable? What if we were talking about a one-page summary of upcoming events that a school called their "newspaper"? Clearly, that would not be notable, and illustrates why school newspapers must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (to determine if they're division I or division III, to use the above sports analogy) rather than automatically considered notable simply because it's a newspaper. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete, the same information is on the NAU page already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Arizona University Ben1283 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]