Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heuristic Squelch 2

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heuristic Squelch

Heuristic Squelch is a student newspaper published at UC Berkeley.

I deleted this article based on an earlier AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heuristic Squelch), which reached a 4-1 vote. I took this as consensus, but Zippy later argued that I was wrong in doing so, citing the comment he made on the earlier debate: 'as evidence of its noteworthiness, the phrase "heuristic squelch" yields 20k hits on Google, with a quick scan of the first 30 results showing that most point to this paper (~ 2 results appear to be dictionary spam pages) and the paper has been published for > 3 years.' Because I may have acted improperly, I am undeleting the page and resubmitting it to the AFD. Future commenters, please consider Zippy's evidence. Ingoolemo ^talk

Thank you, Ingoolemo. I appreciate your going the distance on this.

Briefly, the Heuristic Squelch, despite the (intentionally) silly name, is a humorous paper (like The Onion) published at UC Berkeley's main campus. The student population is over 20,000, and the paper is widely read. Given its 14 year run, a large fraction of 280k alumni (14 years x 20k students/yr) are directly aware of the paper. That, plus the Google evidence that mentioned the paper (20k matches to the phrase "heuristic squelch"), to my mind, make a very strong case that the paper is notable. For those of you tuning in, the previous vote was that it was not notable, but the first four voters of five had not seen this evidence at the time they voted. So ...

keep, notable.--Zippy 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The student population is over 20,000, and the paper is widely read. I read that as a handwaving attempt to link the student population (which is actually closer to 30,000) with the unspecified circulation figures.

...a large fraction of 280k alumni...are directly aware of the paper A large fraction are also aware, as am I, of the statue of the pelican by the Pelican Building, the fire trail up Strawberry Canyon, the coffee house by McLaughlin Hall, La Val's Pizza, and the kiosk by the BART station which sold Chinese buns for 75 cents apiece. I doubt any of them would be considered worthy of an article, even La Val's. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Second time through the mill with the same solo defender. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Berkeley happenings are notable. --Pypex 19:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Discovering Plutonium: notable. A student publication: not so much. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If there was a dispute, it should have gone through Deletion Review. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - newspaper of notable Berkeley university makes it notable in its own right. Zordrac 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zippy's google test. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a fairly quality publication as far as student magazines go, and as a major publication at a major university, is notable. Catamorphism 07:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable, although I commend the author for making the best possible case. Jtmichcock 02:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable -- and I speak as one who used to read the damned thing. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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.