Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dailyer Nebraskan

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. Shimeru (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dailyer Nebraskan[edit]

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

Non-notable "newspaper" lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Fail to establish WP:NOTABILITY. ttonyb (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't understand how a newspaper that gets 5,000 unique hits a month on its website and has a circulation 10,000 can not have notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Real world popularity is not the same as Wikipedia notability. in addition, circulation and Google hits are not part of notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After reading this and editing the page I do believe that we now are within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Simply making a statement without providing support for the statement does not help the reviewing admin decide the validity of the article. ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 5000 uniques a month? I've got blogs that get that in a day that I'd never dream of starting Wikipedia articles for--mainly due to lack of independent nontrivial coverage elsewhere. Heather (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page now contains several independent sources to verify the information provided. These sources show that several notable sources have independently provided information about the Dailyer Nebraskan. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, one minor article, one article, and a comment by one of the original founders does not appear to be non-trivial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the refs do not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added more sources to the article, and believe it passes notability at this time. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HT News does publish a "US Fed News", as their webpage states. Forgive me for not assuming good faith, but you have to admit that something like the person who nominated an article for deletion removing references during discussion looks highly suspect. I have responded in greater detail on your talk page, and hope that we can resolve this without any more animosity from either of us. Once again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, I see HT News does publish this - OMG, the Wikipedia article is not up to date. 8-) I also see how my edits could have been seen as a problem. Thanks for your further comments and I look forward to editing with you in the future. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Possible merge to article about the University. Edison (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University_of_Nebraska-Lincoln. Per nom, fails WP:N. This newspaper is probably only viewed by students,teachers, or alumni of the university. Traxs7 (Talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. • Freechild'sup? 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - arguably the Lincoln Star refs in particular get it over the line. I'd listen to contrary arguments though. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Veracity, verifiability, and NPOV maintained. Footnoted properly. Not selling a product. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (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.