Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Review

The Review

This article should be deleted because it is a school club, and therefore is not in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines for publishing. Mysticfeline 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have precedent re student newspapers? They claim to have won awards; some verification of that would help establish a claim for relevance. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't exclude school clubs per se, any more than it excludes any other sorts of clubs per se. We aim to be more sophisticated than that.
The first test that an article's subject has to pass is that of verifiability. The simple existence of this newspaper is verifiable, as the school's own web site lists it as one of two newspapers. The second test that an article's subject has to pass is notability, whether the world at large has taken note of the subject, and the best litmus test for that is whether anyone else, independent of the subject, has found it notable enough to go to the trouble of creating some sort of non-trivial published work of their own (such as a book, a magazine feature, a paper published in a journal, or a television documentary, for examples) focussing on it. This newspaper fails that test. Researching, I cannot find anything written about this newspaper that isn't sourced directly from the newspaper itself. (Information about the newspaper from the newspaper suffers from the same non-neutrality, non-verifiability, and original research concerns that all autobiographies suffer from.) It's only other mentions anywhere are incidental and so minor as to provide no useful information about the newspaper itself (such as mentions in a list of awards to student journalists that lists the school newspaper that each works for). If someone else had, say, published a book entitled The Review: 1946–2005: A history of student journalism at St John's School, the newspaper would have passed the test. But there's no evidence that anything like that exists.
Having multiple, independent, reliable, sources is as much a part of good encyclopaedism as it is of good journalism. Delete. Uncle G 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. An example of the article's unreliability: it claims that the paper itself has won "numerous awards" from the CSPA, but the only facts I can find boil down to this - one award from the CSPA, one of literally hundreds made in 1996 alone, and awarded to a student journalist for a single article published in the paper, not to the paper itself. — Haeleth Talk 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G, non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]