Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Globalist

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 merge to University of Cambridge. The consensus is that although the subject does not warrant a stand-alone article, a mention of salient points should be made in the University's article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Globalist[edit]

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

Although the University of Cambridge is notable, this student does not inherit its notability. Without reliable, independent references this fails WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:07, 5 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 09:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the feedback, I definitely see errors made in the first drafts. I've substantially reviewed the article, adding elements of notability and better sources and removing unsubstantiated claims. I'd say it now has notability equivalent to the Yale Globalist and TCS, two related pages. (It has readership equivalent/higher than either I think, though I can't find a reliable source for this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossywitt (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mossywitt account appears to be a WP:SPA, judging from its creation date and edit log. AadaamS (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if I'm an ex-employee of Cambridge, I'm not sure I'm permitted to take a formal stance on this one, but I'm not sure that Yale Globalist is also notable--- issue being seeing a flood of student run publications all over WP, and then after those are included, we have mud-hut unaccredited half schools existing for two semesters jumping into the fray, none of which have two independent media articles about them. Under WP:Be Nice it seems the author (and voter above) has done some very hard work putting in references, but Twitter is definitely as per sysop consensus not a reliable source. Hmmm... somebody please dig up two independent media references to this publication, or failing that, AfD Yale Globalist as well. best -Augustabreeze (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Yale Globalist and other student newspapers lack notability then you are of course welcome to nominate that article for deletion as well. AadaamS (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found two mainstream media references to Yale Globalist which satisfy WP:Notability. -Augustabreeze (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Augustabreeze: ok, good but that doesn't help verify notability of the CG as notability is not inherited. See also the WP:AADD and implying that the CG is notable because the YG is, falls under the fallacy of inherited notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to CUSU page. no WP:RS appear to verify the subject's notability as per the WP:GNG.AadaamS (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CUSU as above, as the globalist is recognised by CUSU as an affiliated society. [1] Is Mossywitt the same Mossy Wittenberg that describes themselves as editor-in-chief in the print edition of this project here? Surely that would be a significant interest to declare, as per WP:COI? Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drchriswilliams: considering the creation and edit log history of the Mossywitt account, it appears to be a single purpose account. AadaamS (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cambridge University, the magazine isn't notable enough to have its own article per WP:GNG (specifically, the bit about the sources not being independent of the subject), but it could use a mention in the article about the university. I'm sure the magazine is notable within the confines of the university. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Upon review, the subject of this article does not seem notable enough to stand alone as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have nothing here to establish notability, and there isn't usable (reliably sourced in third-party sources) content to merge. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:02, 2 February 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.