Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plant (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 Merge/redirect to Dawson College. I will merge - please insert further encyclopedic facts at the target article. Black Kite 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Plant (newspaper)

The Plant (newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. A non-notable student newspaper (a Quebecois CEGEP is somewhere between the last year of high school and the first year of university in other locales) with no references or sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually got several hits searching the name and the college. Not saying that the hits make it notable, but it certainly does get google hits. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because it reads like an ad. I think student newspapers in general are notable. GreenJoe 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is really on notability (which can't be fixed), not the quality of the article (which can be fixed). Are you saying the subject is notable if someone copyedited the article? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete student newspapers are virtually never notable, and this is certainly not an exception. The article is dreadful and appears to have been written by someone with no concept of what an encyclopedia is or contains: for example, it lists where and when they meet, as though it were a flyer on a bulletin-board. Even if cleaned up, wouldn't be notable whatsoever anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at Category:Student newspapers, you'll see that there are a lot of Wikipedia articles on student newspapers. I normally don't subscribe to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in AfD discussions, but the existence of so many other articles respecting student newspapers suggests that your statement ("student newspapers are virtually never notable") is not accurate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some articles on community college (the best equivalent to CEGEPs in the rest of Canada) newspapers in Canada, including The Dialog, The Capilano Courier and The Other Press. The existence of those articles does not mean this one if notable, of course, but it does mean that the lack of college papers in Category:Student newspapers published in Quebec is probably not an indicia of lack of notability. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Notability (media), student newspapers are notable or non-notable by exactly the same set of standards as commercial non-student media; they are not uniquely non-notable solely on the basis that they serve a predominantly student population. "The largest CEGEP newspaper in Quebec" most certainly is a valid notability claim. You want independent sources? Here are some independent sources: [1], [2], [3] (secondary mention, but still relevant as a source for expanding this article by touching on the Dawson College shooting). So that puts in in keep territory for me. And even if it doesn't get kept, it's still unequivocally entitled, again per Wikipedia:Notability (media), to a merge and redirect into Dawson College. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat & The Plant's apparent status as the largest CEGEP newspaper, therefore notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per my comments above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable student newspaper. No secondary sources that meet WP:N and claim to be largest newspaper of its type is unsourced and fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Keep Notability seems established per Bearcat. Being the largest of it's type in Quebec is non-trivial and the sources seem minimal but enough.68.40.58.255 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 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.