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 trainwreck. Please relist seperately. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (magazine)

[edit]

There has been an argument over the notability of student newspapers. So as such I'm submitting these Australian student newspapers for a more general opinion. I am personally neutral CitiCat^♫ 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am including the following additional articles:[reply]

Delete all view except Keep view on Rabelais Student Media that was involved in a notable controversy. I don't think that this mass AFD will settle any issue since such mass nominations too often result in a train smash. In my view articles should be considered individually. Having said that I have gone through each of the articles. Student newspapers have no inherent notability. As with any other publication they need to meet WP:N. This means that there should be multiple secondary sources attesting to notability. Such sources should not be passing mentions of the publication but sources that review the publication in a meaningful way. None of these have such sources. Being accessible through a state or national library is not particularly significant; many such major libraries have a policy of keeping all publications in their area. Reprinting controversies, as some have done with the Rabelais does not provide reflective notability. Bridgeplayer 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Hamfisted attempt at self-justification from an admin stung by criticism. alexis+kate=? 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and relist selectively., I find it impossible to believe that all Australian student newspapers are equally notable or equally non-notable. This is no way to consider them properly. DGG (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep all and relist selectively per DGG :: maelgwn - talk 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG and maelgwn. Examine each one on a case by case basis. Dbromage [Talk] 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all except Rabelais Student Media. Per Bridgeplayer, with exception to Rabelais, all the above publications lack notability, secondary sources, and don't really contain enough content worthy of remaining. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist individually on the basis that it is conceivable, if unlikely, for individual notability here in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist individually per FrozenPurpleCube. A search of Google News for "honi soit" reveals an article in The Australian dated June 2, 2006 about the effect of Voluntary Student Unionism on student newspapers, which contains at least a mention of HS (it's a pay-to-view article so I'd have to track it down by other means to determine how significant the mention is), which suggests there's a reasonable possibility of reliable sources being found for some, if not all, the articles. Confusing Manifestation 06:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, there was apparently a whole article on HS in the Australian Magazine, so at the very least that needs to be kept. Confusing Manifestation 06:47, 23 August 2007 (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.