Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Column 8

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 Merge/Redirect to The Sydney Morning Herald. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Column 8

Column 8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clearly non-notable outside of The Sydney Morning Herald; move to merge failed to reach consensus. Jfire (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This is User:Ta bu shi da yu. Column 8 is an incredibly significant cultural instutition in Sydney. I must disagree with the deletion attempt. Sorry, I scrambled my password and can't login anymore. - 220.237.96.135 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Sydney Morning Herald. Column 8 is a famous part of the SMH, but is in no way notable except in the context of the newspaper. The SMH article isn't very big so there's no article size-related reason to have this as a seperate article and the article does not provide any sources which assert the Column's notability as a seperate entity. This matter was discussed in April 2007 (see: Talk:The_Sydney_Morning_Herald#Merge_Column_8) and the editors who opposed the merge have not subsequently improved the article or added any references which demonstrate that Column 8 is notable in isolation. From re-reading that discussion (in which I took part) it seems that the majority of participants supported the merge, though no consensus was reached. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The SMH does have some good features, invariably the articles they've lifted wholesale from London's Daily Telegraph, but this isn't one of them. Nick mallory (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs a better article, not a merge. Orderinchaos 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge -- into The Sydney Morning Herald. - Longhair\talk 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Sydney Morning Herald. It is not notable outside Sydney. If it is kept it should be renamed to Column 8 in the Sydney Morning Herald. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable column running since 1947 --Matilda talk 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) (not from Sydney though I do read the SMH and Column 8!)
  • Delete. There's nothing notable about this column. The only refs are collections of the columns themselves. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - references are no longer confined to Sydney Morning Herald self-references. As to notability, in my view, newspaper columns running for over 60 years are not that common.--Matilda talk 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Sydney Morning Herald article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Sydney Morning Herald. Column 8 is a Sydney institution given its longevity and its pioneering role as a form of "talkback" from readers on topics too quirky or humorous for a formal letters page. Its notability is easily established but its existence and content are a subset of the existence and content of the parent newspaper. Both this and Good Weekend (Sydney Morning Herald) could easily be incorporated as subheadings in the main article. Euryalus (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There's definitely the potential for a full-sized article on Column 8. But what we've got ain't it. A merge would be a good idea until the SMH is bursting at the seams. Deletion is definitely overkill, and can cause some pedians to get a bit grumpy. Andjam (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Bduke. Only relevant in the context of the newspaper itself. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, as suggested above. It's an important part of the paper, but I don't think it has anything more than local notability on its own. Lankiveil (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge into The Sydney Morning Herald. --Canley (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (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.