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The result was nomination withdrawn by the nominator.
I would not agree with the assertion of advertising. It's a fairly prominent entity at UConn with its share of history and controversy.
69.125.1.183 (
talk) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. fails
WP:GNG and is just pure advertising, could be
G11'able. -- Wesoree(
talk·
contribs) 14:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Keep. The article just needs a little rewrite, then it's all fine. -- Wesoree(
talk·
contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. In one minute of google searchland, came up with plenty of
WP:SIGCOV including
[2],
[3],
[4]. There's lots more, but this obviously meets
WP:GNG. This newspaper is 127 years old. The article may not be great, but that's no reason for deletion, it's reason to improve it.
Jacona (
talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Asking one question is hardly badgering. Please feel free to add RS to the article, your help in building the encyclopedia will be greatly appreciated!.
Jacona (
talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just added some, including items Jacona listed above. –
.Raven.talk 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
You're the nominator. It's your prerogative to withdraw the nomination if nobody agrees with deletion. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I want to delete a lot of the article and merge some of it. Do I need to debate that here?
Chances last a finite time (
talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
"Delete a lot of the article" is a different matter than deleting the article outright. If you believe there should be an article at all, you should withdraw the deletion nomination.
WPscattert/c 17:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge but it needs massive paring down of completely unsourced sections. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
... or to find and cite sources for them. –
.Raven.talk 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: the state's largest daily college newspaper, over 120 years old, with multiple other newspapers either reporting on it, citing its reporting, or reprinting its text verbatim (e.g. editorials), is clearly found notable by the press. –
.Raven.talk 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems as though there's enough notability for an article, but I agree it has to be pared down and rewritten almost entirely.
Keep. Sources identified by
Jacona show a clear
WP:NORG pass, and there are ample others. The Hartford Courant, Connecticut's newspaper of record, alone has at least half a dozen articles focusing specifically on the paper. Newspapers.com archives turn up plenty just under its current name:[1][2][3][4] Many student newspapers that are far smaller/newer have survived AfD. The nominator is a new user, but they should be aware that conflict of interest editing is not a valid reason to delete an article like this one that is not at all borderline on notability. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sdkb: Although, to be careful, the Hartford Courant has been the publisher of the Daily Campus since Fall 2016, as indicated in the infobox, so that may not be a truly
WP:INDEPENDENT source. Good thing the three refs you give are from before that date. –
.Raven.talk 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, I hadn't seen that. Good observation, but even for post-2016 coverage, I would be surprised if there were any independence issues. "Publisher" in this sort of instance often just means "printer", i.e. The Daily Campus pays the Courant to print it each week, but the Courant doesn't look at the content, and any Courant reporters writing about The Daily Campus would be on the other side of its
editorial firewall. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I personally agree with that likelihood, but am aware that not everyone may; IOW, this is an area of possible, arguable challenge. –
.Raven.talk 21:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Needs a lot of cleanup and citation work, but meets
WP:NORG criteria, with historical significance and extensive coverage in other newspapers and secondary sources.
Topshelver (
talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
just here to say that i've deleted much of the unsourced garbage.
lettherebedarklight晚安 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep if it's large enough to expand. I'm not familiar with it, so if it's not large enough, merge instead. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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 nomination withdrawn by the nominator.
I would not agree with the assertion of advertising. It's a fairly prominent entity at UConn with its share of history and controversy.
69.125.1.183 (
talk) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. fails
WP:GNG and is just pure advertising, could be
G11'able. -- Wesoree(
talk·
contribs) 14:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Keep. The article just needs a little rewrite, then it's all fine. -- Wesoree(
talk·
contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. In one minute of google searchland, came up with plenty of
WP:SIGCOV including
[2],
[3],
[4]. There's lots more, but this obviously meets
WP:GNG. This newspaper is 127 years old. The article may not be great, but that's no reason for deletion, it's reason to improve it.
Jacona (
talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Asking one question is hardly badgering. Please feel free to add RS to the article, your help in building the encyclopedia will be greatly appreciated!.
Jacona (
talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just added some, including items Jacona listed above. –
.Raven.talk 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
You're the nominator. It's your prerogative to withdraw the nomination if nobody agrees with deletion. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I want to delete a lot of the article and merge some of it. Do I need to debate that here?
Chances last a finite time (
talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
"Delete a lot of the article" is a different matter than deleting the article outright. If you believe there should be an article at all, you should withdraw the deletion nomination.
WPscattert/c 17:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge but it needs massive paring down of completely unsourced sections. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
... or to find and cite sources for them. –
.Raven.talk 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: the state's largest daily college newspaper, over 120 years old, with multiple other newspapers either reporting on it, citing its reporting, or reprinting its text verbatim (e.g. editorials), is clearly found notable by the press. –
.Raven.talk 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems as though there's enough notability for an article, but I agree it has to be pared down and rewritten almost entirely.
Keep. Sources identified by
Jacona show a clear
WP:NORG pass, and there are ample others. The Hartford Courant, Connecticut's newspaper of record, alone has at least half a dozen articles focusing specifically on the paper. Newspapers.com archives turn up plenty just under its current name:[1][2][3][4] Many student newspapers that are far smaller/newer have survived AfD. The nominator is a new user, but they should be aware that conflict of interest editing is not a valid reason to delete an article like this one that is not at all borderline on notability. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sdkb: Although, to be careful, the Hartford Courant has been the publisher of the Daily Campus since Fall 2016, as indicated in the infobox, so that may not be a truly
WP:INDEPENDENT source. Good thing the three refs you give are from before that date. –
.Raven.talk 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, I hadn't seen that. Good observation, but even for post-2016 coverage, I would be surprised if there were any independence issues. "Publisher" in this sort of instance often just means "printer", i.e. The Daily Campus pays the Courant to print it each week, but the Courant doesn't look at the content, and any Courant reporters writing about The Daily Campus would be on the other side of its
editorial firewall. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I personally agree with that likelihood, but am aware that not everyone may; IOW, this is an area of possible, arguable challenge. –
.Raven.talk 21:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Needs a lot of cleanup and citation work, but meets
WP:NORG criteria, with historical significance and extensive coverage in other newspapers and secondary sources.
Topshelver (
talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
just here to say that i've deleted much of the unsourced garbage.
lettherebedarklight晚安 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep if it's large enough to expand. I'm not familiar with it, so if it's not large enough, merge instead. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
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.