Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epigram (newspaper)

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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epigram (newspaper)

Epigram (newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. This is student ephemera that has never done anything notable, never been observed independently from outside its University, has failed to ever win any award the sole award it was incidentally nominated for (and that was just in a student-friendly newspaper). The article contains no informative material beyond the fact that it is the student newspaper at the University of Bristol, which article is already clear on the point. The editors of the article insistently refuse to allow it to be a redirect (largely by insisting it be deleted instead), have removed the PROD tag without explanation or justification and so deletion is the only route remaining. It's useless as a redirect anyway, since noone would ever search for such a parenthetical phrase. Note that the glut of apparent media references are all 'shortlists' for the award it failed to win, and thus not actually about Epigram. -Splash - tk 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. University newspapers often have many notable alumni. --Eastmain 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe the above summary to be really quite inaccurate. The article contains a lot more information than the University of Bristol page - the latter merely contains the sentence "The students' newspaper is called Epigram, and is produced fortnightly during term-time." One of the six newspaper URLs refers specifically to the paper's stance during the history teaching dispute. I would hardly call six references a "glut", particularly when they have been put there in response to a call for more references. But overall, the main arguments against the constant redirection by Splash were that, firstly, he was doing it without consultation; secondly, he was redirecting it to the University of Bristol Union page, which did not mention Epigram at all (other than a "see also" link to the Epigram (newspaper) article, leading to a looped divert); and thirdly he was deleting a large amount of useful information and not moving it onto the page he was redirecting to. I believe the article demonstrates its notability now, and should be kept. Tim (Xevious) 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a brilliant article and could do with expanding, but the newspaper is notable (along with the alumni it has produced). Certainly other universities have articles about their student media - Oxford (The Oxford Student, Cherwell), Birmingham (Redbrick) and Sheffield (The Steel Press) are just the first three I checked. I can't see which bit of Wikipedia:Notability it doesn't meet. MrBeast 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Student-run college newspapers are neither inherently notable nor non-notable. A notable one might have notable alumni (Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote for one), might have won awards from respected organizations, might have large circulations, might have been the primary news sources covering notable events which coverage was picked up by other news media, and might have received notice from the press, TV or journalism reviews for doing a great job or a lousy job (as in promulgating hoaxes) or for standoffs regarding journalistic integrity against the administration or to protect sources. Not seeing in the present article much evidence of any such notability. The article is not informative about the year the paper was founded, whether it includes a printed edition, or any measure of its circulation or influence within or without the college. Arguments just saying "it is notable" do not satisfy Wikipedia standards for keeping an article.Edison 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that this is necessary to complete the encyclopaedic picture of the University of Bristol. Without it, there would be a gap in information. I think the article as it stands is in need of improvement, but I don't think its deficiencies in present content are reason enough to delete the article in entirety. --Fritzpoll 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Other University media articles are allowed. Its a decent article which could do with expanding. Its well references and its a nice link in the Bristol Uni navigation box which as the above user points out "is necessary to complete the encyclopaedic picture of the University of Bristol". Can't really undertand why is been put up for deletion when every pokemon gets an article Francium12 ^talk/_contribs 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above is incorrect: there is no automatic right to a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a directory. Furthermore, the above argument seems to be a good summary of WP:AADD ;-) Ohconfucius 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Having received an award by Guardian, a very reputable newspaper in the UK, is enough to show the newspaper is notable enough to remain here.--Kylohk 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above is incorrect: A nomination is not an award. Ohconfucius 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I prodded this article once, and added the notability tag. I believe that while every attempt has been made to assert notability, there are no hard achievements per WP:N or WP:ORG to support its retention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is at least one student newspaper in every university and college, and most are not notable. This appears to be quite a young journal, which has never won any award, let alone a "major award". No notable alumni can be cited, and no press coverage to boot. The references supplied are all either self references, or are trivial mentions which list all nominees for the awards, so one can in no way say any part of this article is reliably sourced, except for the existence of award nominations, and the fact that a story was picked up by the Times. I do not feel that any of these count as valid assertions of notability per our policies and guidelines. If the article's information is essential to give a complete picture of the Uni, then the content could arguably be integrated there. As it stands, it does not merit an article of its own. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, so we should delete the article, without prejudice to re-creation when it actually becomes notable. Ohconfucius 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering that the Guardian awards cited rate the paper as one of the top four student newspapers in the country this makes the paper somewhat more notable that most of the articles in Category:United Kingdom student newspapers which havent faced the wrath of deletionist wikipedians (yet!). If Epigram doesnt warrent and article then neither do any other student newspapers. Considering the Telegraph, The Times and the BBC have all picked up on Epigram stories the paper does have a certain level of notability which other student papers do not. Don't merge - the navigation box is there for a reason Francium12 ^talk/_contribs 11:28, 8 June 2007 (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.