Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Voice (student newspaper)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete Mandsford 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Voice (student newspaper)[edit]
- The Voice (student newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Subject is a newspaper published twice-monthly by and for the ~1460 students of Avondale College that fails the general notability guideline. The only reference in the article at this time is a primary source. Searches indicate most available sources are the newsletter's website and facebook page. If the article creator can add sources between now and when this AfD is due to close, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom, but right now it's not looking good. AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm new to creating content and was wondering why this publication is any less notable than some of the other Australian Student Newspapers? Go check them all out, only a few of them have references from notable sources and some of the ones that do have notable references have done so in a sketchy kind of way. This is my first attempt at creating content for Wikipedia and I would like to learn what I need to include to have this article stay, could someone please tell me?Trent McCrow (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I realize that this is not the answer you were hoping for, I've just nominated Crossfire (magazine) (from Deakin University) for deletion, because that article has similar problems involving a lack of independent reliable sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that on the grounds of notoriety and references a number of the student newspapers currently on Wikipedia should also go under this deletion process. What I would like to know is if there is a notable former editor or if a story was covered elsewhere would this suffice to keep the article? Ie. What does an article require for it to stay on Wikipedia? Trent McCrow (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the general notability guideline, which I've linked above as well, subjects require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Note that notability is not inherited, so a former editor being notable does not make the newspaper notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that on the grounds of notoriety and references a number of the student newspapers currently on Wikipedia should also go under this deletion process. What I would like to know is if there is a notable former editor or if a story was covered elsewhere would this suffice to keep the article? Ie. What does an article require for it to stay on Wikipedia? Trent McCrow (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I realize that this is not the answer you were hoping for, I've just nominated Crossfire (magazine) (from Deakin University) for deletion, because that article has similar problems involving a lack of independent reliable sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to suggest that this newspaper is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above, no proof of notability. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 18:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've now read some more of the guidelines in relation to notability and believe I can find some things within seven days. Trent McCrow (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student activity at a single school, neither notable or verifiable. Trent McCrow seems pretty sure they can fix it somehow, but I really can't imagine how that might be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Note that if for some reason this is kept, it must be renamed since there are a large number of schools that publish The Voice. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 13 November 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.