Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Martlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep (and Cleanup) - 8 / Delete 5 / Merge and redirect 3: Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"The Independent Student Newspaper of the University of Victoria". Marked as a speedy, but it doesn't seem like one. Might be best merged somewhere but no vote from me yet. My vote is keep now it's been cleaned up. Kappa 10:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirectto University of Victoria, merging a little of the intro. Most of this article is a copyvio from www.martlet.ca/archives/031002/news6.html, but the material doesn't belong in this article anyway. Some of the information (but not the text) could go to various other articles. My first reaction to this listing was that it was unnecessary, as the proposer didn't propose deletion, but I see the problems now and yes, VfD is probably the way to go. Andrewa 12:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)- There is an existing category for Category:Canadian student newspapers, which I've added this article to. I strongly object to any attempt to draw a distinction between Canadian student newspapers that are notable enough to have an article and those that aren't, and fail to see how The Martlet is any less notable than American student papers such as The Tartan or the Chicago Maroon, both of which also already have articles. The only acceptable options are keep this, or delete all university newspapers, period; nothing in between is appropriate. I have to say cleanup (I've done some myself just now), but keep. Bearcat 18:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (change of vote). Good refactor. Agree that Canadian (and Australian... hang in there Lleyton) student newspapers should be treated equally to those of other countries, but I think the above argument misses the point on several issues. Academic (;-> now. Andrewa 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if I'm missing the point, then please show me where. Because the way I see it, there are only three possible approaches to the general topic of student newspapers: (a) all are notable enough for Wikipedia, (b) none are notable enough for Wikipedia, (c) some are notable enough for Wikipedia and others aren't. I'm genuinely curious to know where the distinction lays for people who believe (c), because I don't personally see where a defensible distinction can be drawn. Bearcat 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Peace! But for a start, you still seem to think that someone wants to discriminate against Canadians. Nobody is proposing that, see my comments above and those of others below. Before, it seemed you were arguing that because we hadn't deleted a similar article, we shouldn't delete this one. Two problems there: Firstly, nobody had at that stage suggested deleting this one (not even the nominator). Secondly, we do make mistakes. Precedents are relevant, but not proof. No change of vote (ie still a keep as revised from redirect). Andrewa 08:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In my original comment, my strong objection was to dividing Canadian student newspapers from each other as notable vs. non-notable; the American examples were raised in a different context. Yes, my point is that American and British student newspapers need to be treated equivalently; I raise that not because I think that there's some conspiracy against Canadian topics, but because if I didn't, this would have either survived or failed the VfD process as an isolated example and the others would have stayed right where they were. Frankly, I think student newspapers are a topic (university athletics teams and student unions would be two more) where we need to have a clear policy on their notability (or lack thereof) which applies consistently, because as things stand, some isolated examples get deleted and other isolated examples survive almost solely on the basis of who happens to show up to vote in that particular case, which isn't acceptable. (For example, the list of member papers at Canadian University Press must consistently link either to member papers or to the university articles. It absolutely cannot be half one, half the other. It also happens to be woefully incomplete at the moment, for that matter, since I can't add anything to it until I know whether I can link to papers.) And just for the record, Canadian topics really have sometimes been held to a higher standard of notability on VfD than their American or British equivalents. I ain't making this up. Bearcat 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Lots of issues here, but I don't think this is the place to discuss them. We agree on the course of action. I notice you haven't expressed your opinions about student newspapers at Wikipedia:what's in, what's out#Newspapers and magazines; Please consider doing this, although it's (quite explicitly) not a policy document it does have some following. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In my original comment, my strong objection was to dividing Canadian student newspapers from each other as notable vs. non-notable; the American examples were raised in a different context. Yes, my point is that American and British student newspapers need to be treated equivalently; I raise that not because I think that there's some conspiracy against Canadian topics, but because if I didn't, this would have either survived or failed the VfD process as an isolated example and the others would have stayed right where they were. Frankly, I think student newspapers are a topic (university athletics teams and student unions would be two more) where we need to have a clear policy on their notability (or lack thereof) which applies consistently, because as things stand, some isolated examples get deleted and other isolated examples survive almost solely on the basis of who happens to show up to vote in that particular case, which isn't acceptable. (For example, the list of member papers at Canadian University Press must consistently link either to member papers or to the university articles. It absolutely cannot be half one, half the other. It also happens to be woefully incomplete at the moment, for that matter, since I can't add anything to it until I know whether I can link to papers.) And just for the record, Canadian topics really have sometimes been held to a higher standard of notability on VfD than their American or British equivalents. I ain't making this up. Bearcat 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Peace! But for a start, you still seem to think that someone wants to discriminate against Canadians. Nobody is proposing that, see my comments above and those of others below. Before, it seemed you were arguing that because we hadn't deleted a similar article, we shouldn't delete this one. Two problems there: Firstly, nobody had at that stage suggested deleting this one (not even the nominator). Secondly, we do make mistakes. Precedents are relevant, but not proof. No change of vote (ie still a keep as revised from redirect). Andrewa 08:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if I'm missing the point, then please show me where. Because the way I see it, there are only three possible approaches to the general topic of student newspapers: (a) all are notable enough for Wikipedia, (b) none are notable enough for Wikipedia, (c) some are notable enough for Wikipedia and others aren't. I'm genuinely curious to know where the distinction lays for people who believe (c), because I don't personally see where a defensible distinction can be drawn. Bearcat 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've merged the stubs for The Tartan and the Chicago Maroon with their respective universities. Gamaliel 21:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Very well and good. There are still plenty of student newspapers existing in Category:Student newspapers, and gawd knows how many more lurking outside of any category. Those were just two examples, not the totality of the issue I was raising. Bearcat 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, but those were the only two I knew about at the time. I've started working on redirecting and merging the stubs in that category. Care to give me a hand? Gamaliel 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, no, because I'm not going to pretend I believe that student newspapers are unencyclopedic or undeserving of individual articles. Bearcat 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, but those were the only two I knew about at the time. I've started working on redirecting and merging the stubs in that category. Care to give me a hand? Gamaliel 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Very well and good. There are still plenty of student newspapers existing in Category:Student newspapers, and gawd knows how many more lurking outside of any category. Those were just two examples, not the totality of the issue I was raising. Bearcat 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (change of vote). Good refactor. Agree that Canadian (and Australian... hang in there Lleyton) student newspapers should be treated equally to those of other countries, but I think the above argument misses the point on several issues. Academic (;-> now. Andrewa 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The burden of evidence should be very high to show that a regularly published newspaper is not notable, and most English and major other-language newspapers not sufficiently notable for the English wikipedia. Some would obviously fail, such as advertising and listing "newspapers." This would not. Bearcat introduces the problems with such an isolated deletion. The article now notes how it was "responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president," which is highly important. Besides, I've never had anything to do with the University of Victoria, but I'm interested in it, and it's certainly expandible. (What's it independent of? Was it a response to an oldline establishment student newspaper? Have any subsequently notable people written for it? And so on.) Keep. Samaritan 18:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Clean up and keep. Needs to be copyvio-free (if that's still an issue), but it's certainly worthwhile to have. – Beginning 19:43, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough for an article. A newspaper is not notable per se. As for Bearcat's argument, I'm all for deleting every university newspaper from Wikipedia, unless they are actually notable for something else than simply being a newspaper. JoaoRicardo 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --Spinboy 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WeakDelete, not notable enough for me. Megan1967 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Keep. Student newspapers are interesting, useful, notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this and any other student newspapers from any country. Gamaliel 03:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; student newspapers are on the wrong side of the line. —Korath (Talk) 05:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Then start putting the damned things up for deletion. Just saying student newspapers aren't notable when only one paper is actually up for deletion will only result in that one paper being singled out for deletion and the others being left alone. Bearcat 05:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RedirectMerge and redirect to University of Victoria. I go to UVic, I read the thing every week, and I don't think this is encyclopaedic. And for the record, I'd vote to delete other student newspapers of this miserly stature as well. Lord Bob 10:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)- Is that a merge and redirect, or just redirect?
- And what do you define as "miserly" vs. "non-miserly" student newspapers? Where's the dividing line? Bearcat 19:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. By default, student newspapers are not notable. Practically every university and college has one. There could be a student newspaper that is notable. The first one in a country or language. A student newspaper where an extraordinary number of a country's top journalists learned their profession. One that has won the Pulitzer Prize, or the equivalent in another country. But the burden of proof is on the person writing the article to establish notability. --BM 16:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to University of Victoria. The argument for outright deletion escapes me. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to University of Victoria. Current content is not sufficient to stand alone as an encyclopedia article. If there is ever a lot more encyclopedia-worthy material, it can be broken out to a separate article then. In the meantime, it is better discussed in context. Comment: To answer Bearcat's question above, I strongly believe the answer is C - keep some and delete others. The decision is a judgment call and often a very difficult one but it should be based on 1) whether the topic is or ever can be encyclopedic and 2) whether readers will understand the current content best if it is discussed separately or in the immediate context of some other article. I disagree with his/her comment that the "member pages at Canadian University Press must consistently link" one way or the other. Piped section links work just fine. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's necessary because Wikipedia has to start taking consistency of organization more seriously than it does. It looks bad to have some things separated out as articles while other equivalent things are strictly subsections of other articles, it looks bad to have an inconsistently-organized list, etc. Consistency isn't taken nearly seriously enough on here; there are far too many ad hoc decisions made in one case and not in another, resulting in poor organization. And also, I've noticed that the unofficial rule for most publications seems to be that any magazine or newspaper with a per issue circulation of at least 5,000 passes the test; why should a student paper be held to a different standard? Bearcat 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the place to discuss it, but I disagree with Bearcat's notion of consistency here. I don't see this as any different than (for example) one might have a list of an author's works with only the major works linking to articles of their own. Is there somewhere more appropriate to discuss this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's necessary because Wikipedia has to start taking consistency of organization more seriously than it does. It looks bad to have some things separated out as articles while other equivalent things are strictly subsections of other articles, it looks bad to have an inconsistently-organized list, etc. Consistency isn't taken nearly seriously enough on here; there are far too many ad hoc decisions made in one case and not in another, resulting in poor organization. And also, I've noticed that the unofficial rule for most publications seems to be that any magazine or newspaper with a per issue circulation of at least 5,000 passes the test; why should a student paper be held to a different standard? Bearcat 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Merging things like this defeats the object of the category system as the merged article won't be placed in the newspaper category. Philip 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Categories exist to serve articles, not vice-versa. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody's suggested otherwise. The point is that the category isn't serving the articles if it can't include 95 per cent of the articles that belong in it; it's of no value to have any articles on student newspapers, even "more notable than most" ones, if they're divorced of their context by the lack of any other student newspaper articles to compare them to. It detracts from the existing articles (and from Wikipedia as a whole) to have any "student newspapers" category at all, if isn't allowed to ever contain more than a fractional subset of that group of topics. (And again, comparing this statement to personal biography articles is intellectually dishonest; "student newspapers" is a finite set of things that are mostly of equal notability to each other, not a potentially infinite can of worms like allowing an article on any person who ever lived would be.) Bearcat 00:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Categories exist to serve articles, not vice-versa. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.