Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stentor

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. L Faraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stentor

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

No indication of how this meets notability guidelines, relies entirely on primary sources - unable to find sufficient secondary coverage Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although there are no Google news hits, this is a college newspaper, which makes it somewhat important. In addition, since bound volumes are available at Amazon.com, I give this the benefit of the doubt although policy may not support such an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake Forest College. Student magazine of a small and not very well known private liberal arts college. Article has no external references, and a Google search gives no evidence of notability. Already mentioned in the college's main article. Despite what TonyTheTiger said, being sold on Amazon counts for very little: almost anyone can sell almost anything on Amazon, which is full of non-notable eBooks and print-on-demand publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Redirect to Lake Forest College. Publications with online archives are of particular interest to researchers including Wikipedia editors. In the general case, a topic that fails wp:notability but has WP:RS primary sources and is already covered in the encyclopedia is not appropriate for AfD. So this nomination appears to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT, making the correct closure a speedy keep. This is confirmed by the fact that either the nominator knew that all of the links in the article were dead links and declined to mark them as dead links, or made no attempt to study this topic before bringing the topic to AfD. Nonetheless, I feel that the current article has severe content problems beyond wp:notability that bring it close to a situation that calls for deletion. I have marked the dead links, removed a bogus complaint that the topic failed to meet the Geography notability guideline, and removed a list of WP:BLP violations. I have also found online primary sources and upgraded the topic at Lake Forest College. Careful study of the list of archived newspapers for 2011/2012 shows that the claim in the current article that this "paper...still produces issues every Thursday" is not verifiable. Likewise, the current article IMO is filled with unsourced and unverifiable assertions that are likely to be insider WP:OR. I don't see that there is anything to merge, but I think the edit history is worth keeping as a reference. If this AfD is closed as a speedy keep, I expect to redirect the article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noticed the references, which were bare urls at the time, were dead when I checked them, but I considered that the website might just be temporarily down for a hour or so so I formatted them anyway with cite web to improve the look of the article, specifically leaving the "accessdate" field blank as I did not access them (I was directed to this article from the 'clean up bare urls' backlog). I was planning on coming back to check them the next day to see if they were in fact dead (in which case I would have removed them), but I forgot about it. Considering the article had no secondary sources, and after a quick search found me none that I could add to the article, I figured nominating the article for deletion was the right course of action. Freikorp (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (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.