Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Globe (student newspaper)

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. Rough consensus indicates that the given sources are enough to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe (student newspaper)

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

NN student newspaper at small university, completely unsourced for SEVEN YEARS. Article unimproved and all but unchanged in the eight years since it was created. Prod removed with the specious edit summary "appears to be legitimate journalistic publication ..." That may well be so, but small-school student newspapers are not inherently notable, and WP:V and the GNG requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" in multiple, reliable sources; an WP:ITEXISTS argument never cuts it. Ravenswing 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done some research and improved the article with cited sources. I agree that in its prior state it was unsourced and of poor quality, but WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I was also able to find a good deal more source coverage in LexisNexis, but that database is being slow and wonky for me at the moment, unfortunately, so it's quite slow going with that one. — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you didn't link the HighBeam URLs? Makes it harder to verify the sources czar ⨹ 21:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure I could do that because you have to have a login to view them. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:All citations now have URLs in them. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, AfD isn't for cleanup. It's also not for swamping the process with plainly trivial and fleeting mentions, either. As with Rhododendrites, I've got Highbeam access, and looking over Cirt's cites, not a single one mentions the subject beyond a passing nod, and not a single one discusses the subject in any detail, let alone the "significant coverage" the GNG mandates. In order to legitimately advocate keeping an article, you have to do more than infer or imagine that there might possibly be qualifying sources: you have to produce them, and I'm both astonished and dismayed that an editor of Cirt's experience, someone who's participated in hundreds of AfD discussions, could possibly be confused about the level and depth of coverage that the GNG requires in order to retain an article. I await the first such source, and invite the Keep voters to withdraw their advocacy until and unless such sources are produced. Ravenswing 00:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your little personal jab at Cirt, which you felt the need to add later, after you'd already made your point, contributes nothing to this discussion. Whether you agree with the merit of his edits or not, perhaps you should assume good faith in terms of Cirt's motives and try to keep this discussion on point. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not Cirt's good faith I'm calling into question, but his judgment in asserting that these are sources which satisfy the GNG. A casual glance at them is all that's necessary to see that they don't remotely do so. And since we have you here for further discussion, and you're advocating keeping the article on the strength of the sources, which sources do you feel discuss the subject in significant detail? Ravenswing 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 5 independent inline citations, this student newspaper is notable in Pittsburgh, and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Cirt's improvements already establish notability through reliable sources, and I imagine it could be improved upon even more so. — Hun ter Ka hn 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very clearly fails GNG. Not one single source about the subject. Only a collection of really weak brief mentions from only local papers in minor articles. See below for a response to the idea that any of the sources added bring it anywhere near notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to track down those HighBeam links mentioned above. I couldn't find one and below are both the links and the entirety of their coverage of this subject. All these do is establish the subject exists. Establishing notability via citations rather than articles about a publication requires major citations in major publications, not brief mentions in run-of-the-mill coverage of local people and events. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- from Calling the Question is barely a mention: "In February, Point Park's student-governing body rejected, by one vote, a resolution supporting the union. University administrators urged a no vote, and Point Park's student paper, The Globe, quoted the student-body president saying there was too much uncertainty about "the real implications of unionization.""
- I was not able to turn up any "scholastic corner" from February 2002 in Sunday News (with or without "Lancaster")
- from Point Park Buys Building is again barely a mention: "The school's student newspaper, the Globe, has identified them as the West Penn building at Wood Street and Fort Pitt Boulevard and the 100 Wood Street Building at Wood and First Avenue."
- from Peduto Stays in the know,Hillary's '08 Campaign Branded Casey as Enemy again barely a mention: "In a question-and-answer session at the Press Club of Western Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Peduto took a question from Andrew Goldstein, editor of the Point Park University paper, called the Globe. After Goldstein introduced himself, Peduto said he likes the Globe and praised it for an editorial that ran in the weekly's edition that had just come out that day."
- from Kim Roberts, a brief bio of some local -- not even an article -- is again only a brief mention: "She has been a writer and features editor for the university's student-run newspaper, The Globe, and a writer for Point Park News Service.""
Merge and Redirect Despite Cirt's work to save this article, I don't think the paper is notable as Rhododendrites points out. I'd recommend adding a sentence to Media in Pittsburgh lest the paper be forgotten. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no objection either to a redirect to the Media in Pittsburgh article or to the university article. As to merging, I can't see what there is to merge. Cirt's additions to the article look to be trivial ephemera such as who was two of the editors last year (as opposed to any other editors of the school paper's 50 year history) or that the mayor called upon one of the student editors for a question during a press briefing once. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the student newspaper exists in Pittsburgh would be sufficient for a list-class article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks above for those who've acknowledged my work on this article. Please don't be so quick to judge. I haven't completed research on this yet among other archival database resources. Thanks you for your patience, it's most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the difficult things in carrying out research on this particular topic is the non-unique search term of "the globe", so it's hard to isolate articles about this specific subject. Here are two other search parameters, above. Still in the process of more ongoing research. Might have some time later. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can almost understand a one sentence stub being brought to AFD, and it was a pity that an improvable stub sat unimproved for so long, but WP:NEGLECT is not a valid deletion rational, and even though AFD is not intended to force editorial attention, it often does just that. We now have a decent sourced article on a topic that serves the project and its readers. Cirt is to be thanked for his continued work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good example of WP:NOTCLEANUP and linking to it (this is directed at multiple people, by the way) does not substitute for a keep argument (i.e. explaining why it meets notability criteria). I copied the entirety of coverage of this subject from Cirt's sources above. Beyond failing notability, there's not even enough material to write an encyclopedia article. Even if we copy/pasted the entirety of the text about this subject from these reliable sources, we'd still barely have anything (which is why brief mentions are discounted for notability purposes). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it being improved while under the gun of AFD was not Ravenswing's wish nor intent. And agree with it or not, my linking to WP:NOTCLEANUP was valid in pointing out that Cirt's work need not have been done, and that he has earned my respect by doing it anyway. It's now a more suitable stub than it was. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to thank Cirt if he'd turned up sources which support the subject's notability, rather than fleeting mentions which are explicitly debarred by the GNG from supporting the notability of a subject. Have you looked at those sources yourself, Michael? Ravenswing 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to convince me that this "minor" publication has caught the attention of enough mainstream media to meet the intent of WP:N and be "worthy of notice". And if the "mentions" were so "fleeting" (not the claimed "explicitly disbarred") as you seem to assert that nothing could be gleaned from them under policy with which to build an article, I might agree with you... but as they do offer enough information, I do not agree. The GNG is certainly the simplest means, but not the only. WP:IAR. WP:PRESERVE Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err? The cites provide no information about the paper beyond that it exists. Beyond that, as you surely know, a source whose sole mention of a subject is a quote from the subject is explicitly excluded from supporting the notability of the subject. If what you're claiming, instead, is that your only grounds to support the subject's notability is IAR, what argument do you proffer that the student newspaper of a small school bears so much importance as to override its failure to qualify under the GNG, above and beyond your bald statement that it does? Ravenswing 13:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You first made a point of complaining that the article had sat unimproved for "SEVEN YEARS", when in point of fact you should after 10 years know that WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion criteria. You then insultingly dismissed a valid prod removal as "specious" and erred further by dismissively calling Point Park University "a small-school" as if size were a notability criteria. The safer presumption is that THE newspaper serving a major-enough University is notable enough for Wikipedia. We do not have to toss a now sourced and improved article. It serves Wikipedia and informs Wikipedia readers. And I am sorry I need to again point out that it is an error to baldly insist that the GNG is the "only" means by which a topic may be determined notable. Policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS do not insist that a source be quantitative. Policy WP:IAR disagrees with your narrow restriction of a notability guide, and so do I. Inclusion on Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest, inclusion is based on verifiability and common sense. The paper itself is quoted by others. It is enough worthy of note to be written of here because what it reports is deemed quotable by others. It makes its mark without having to say "we're notable because everyone is reporting on what we are." Per policy and guideline, the GNG is not the final word. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy WP:IAR disagrees with your narrow restriction of a notability guide. IAR disagrees with everything the person who invokes it doesn't like. It doesn't mean do whatever you want if you disagree with the rules, nor does it mean that policies that have nothing to do with inclusion/deletion can be substituted for those that do (WP:V and WP:RS are minimum standards for content and aren't about what should be included -- there are reliable sources for a whole lot of things that shouldn't be included). IAR means -- and I apologize if this sounds like I'm being condescending by typing this out as I know you're no newbie -- that the letter of the law shouldn't take precedent over the spirit of what it's trying to accomplish. What you're proposing is not embracing the spirit of notability but dismissing it wholesale because in this case it doesn't agree with what you want. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but you're not a newbie either, and should know that guidelines are not policies. Policies are the "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". THAT is what we are discussing. I find that ignoring or dismissing the basic policy WP:IAR is not always the best way to improve this project, and what is repeatedly being ignored here is that the GNG is not the only means by which notability may be determined.
Most simply put for this instance... we have a newspaper from a major-enough university, a newspaper verifiable as itself being quoted and referred to by multiple other sources. Such attention makes it worthy of note. And now thanks to Cirt, we have a suitable c-class article which informs our readers even in the lack of comprehensive coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we disagree about what is or is not common sense for the purposes of determining when it's appropriate to invoke IAR. But in the spirit of choosing one's battles I'll leave it at that -- clearly does not seem headed for a delete close and while I don't think this subject merits an article, it's certainly not egregious. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Globe has received multiple forms of recognition from the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2013 it was recognized with 11 "Mark of Excellence Awards"; and the following year it received four from the same institution. My thanks to MichaelQSchmidt for researching and discovering this information. I've tidied up the citations and added it to the article's lede intro sect, as well. Please see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: It would seem sadly logical that someone who does not wish the article here to serve Wikipedia's readers would not bother to seek (and would indeed dismiss) any source refuting a "claim" of non-notability. And since this paper has been around for 82 years, I'll wager that it has had more than just few awards from its peers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as it has apparently won significant awards. (Cirt's expansion was also very useful). --Jakob (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sourced article about an award winning student paper. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:34, 26 January 2015 (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.