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. Sr13 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. NN Student group. Mystache 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find evidence of notability. I'm not really sure if it even avoids speedy deletion criterion A7. --Pekaje 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting from the Yale Office of Public Affairs at http://www.yale.edu/opa/v32.n17/story2.html : "Yale Model United Nations (YMUN), an undergraduate-run conference that draws to campus some 900 high school students from around the country. During the four-day event, participants serve as "delegates" of U.N. member nations in simulated U.N. council and committee meetings as they debate and address true-to-life global problems and crises." See also:
Comment all the above are to Yale or affiliates - they do not consitute independent sources per WP:NOTE. EyeSereneTALK 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As undergraduate publications, the Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News are completely independent from the International Relations Association, which organizes the event and is not affiliated with Yale University in any formal way. As such, they are independent sources per WP:NOTE. The same holds for the Yale Office of Public Affairs. -Levan
Comment - Come on, do you expect anyone to think that The Yale Herald and Yale Daily News are independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity? Their reliability has not been established, and while they may not have any direct affiliation with the subject of the article, they must certainly have a bias in favor of it. Or could you perhaps link to other of their articles where they give equal coverage to the Model UN of some other institution not affiliated with Yale in any way? They fail as sources without even reading the text, which looks like some fairly trivial coverage anyway. --Pekaje 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I haven't read this book, but I am sure that it undermines the ideological basis of the Soviet State," as someone said about Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago back in the 1950s. And yes, I do consider The Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity. The fact that the people who wrote the article and the people who organized the conference go to the same university does not change that for me in the least, because the conference has nothing to do with the university. Hence, both sources can be considered independent, at least as per Wikipedia's standards. And they are certainly not questionable, for that is defined as "those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." That does not apply in this case, for both are newspapers with an established structure of editorial oversight. And the only instance in which a Yale paper would cover, say, a Harvard activity would be if said activity resulted in Cambridge being taken over by little green aliens. Vice versa holds true as well. Levan
Comment - OK, let's try this once again. The reason those articles can't be used to establish notability is that they are likely to be biased in a way that would make them write about less notable events than other papers, simply because it is a Yale event and their reason for existence is to cover Yale-related activities. Just read what they write about themselves: About the Yale Daily News (the other one gives a 404 on the about link). You cannot point to a single paragraph in a policy that would allow these to be considered reliable sources. And don't assume that I haven't read the links. I did, and the coverage was fairly trivial and I really didn't see anything that indicated how this subject was particularly notable. P.S. please log in if you're going to be signing with a username. Right now you're an anonymous IP. --Pekaje 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A local newspaper in West Bushwick is going to be biased towards writing about events in West Bushwick. And yet, when writing about a festival happening in West Bushwick, it is entirely reasonable to rely on this newspaper's coverage. Same goes for a college newspaper. Note that I am not relying on the opinions of the YDN to write about world affairs, for that would be pure folly. On matters related to Yale, however, the YDN and the Herald are the sources of information. As to the official Wikipedia policy, the only thing that I can see there is this: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am pointing you to the second sentence. Both newspapers satisfy this definition perfectly well. I do not see anything else in this definition that coverage by these newspapers does not provide. PS Apologies for not signing in Levan 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They're still not independent. But more importantly, you haven't address my main concern that these sources don't actually seem to establish any sort of notability, should they be considered acceptable sources. --Pekaje 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, NN student group. Since these are always deleted when they come to AfD, and there seems to be about a million of them, the rest should probably just be deleted as A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. Mystache 02:40, 11 July 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.