Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peninsula Outlook

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. Daniel 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Peninsula Outlook

The Peninsula Outlook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines; no evidence supplied that it is a "famous" school newspaper. Winning a few awards does not automatically confer notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Good grief! I think that's the longest newspaper article I've ever seen, even for commercial newspapers! The paper I work for doesn't have an article that long, and we've won two Pulitzer Prizes. The student paper is not even close to being notable by Wikipedia standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not as strong, but still delete. Needs sources, been tagged that way for a while - and by very nature is unsourceable. Complete OR. I have a strong suspicion that the only contributors are those that know this paper even exists, which would be students at the school, which definitely creates WP:COI and would probably account for the article's obscene length. Has anyone notified the creator directly besides of course with the article tag? Also, the IP (anonymous) posts are all (surprise!) near or probably in, the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The paper has won national awards several times. Here are just two citations [1] [2]. It has been cited by Poynter, was involved in this modest contoversy, and the authors clearly spent a lot of time working on it, even though there's some extraneous stuff (e.g. Nine Ball) and not a lot of sourcing. What was that thing about helping improve and source weak articles instead of deleting them? Some core principle or something, I forget. - 75.3.243.147 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources mentioned do not qualify as non-trivial coverage. After removing all of the extraneous and unsourced stuff in the article, it could easily be merged with the it's high school's article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the prizes mentioned are not distinctive--there are dozens of such awards a year in multiple categories. DGG (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This needs to be chopped down to its rightful size per guidelines, re-sourced, completely rewritten for neutrality, among other problems, and then merged into the HS article. Don't take it personally, but most of the info belongs elsewhere. Get a blog. Keeper | 76 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources, and the mentioned awards are unconvincing. -- Whpq 16:08, 27 September 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.