Talk:Central Michigan Life

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Central Michigan Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904230036/http://studentpress.org:80/acp/winners/opm10.html to http://www.studentpress.org/acp/winners/opm10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904230036/http://studentpress.org:80/acp/winners/opm10.html to http://www.studentpress.org/acp/winners/opm10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable alumni
After learning Evan "Doc" Shaner is a 1) a CML alumni and 2) commented on being included in the Wikipedia CM alumni section, I made a point of adding his name. Wrongly, I also added his superfluous joke about his desired notoriety of doing "superhero nonsense". The result was a quick slapdown. Unfortunately it also resulted in nearly all the sections other notable alumni from this college newspaper being removed as well.

Understanding my error, I researched the names, verified their having been alumni of CML, and reversed their deletion. I also cleaned up grammar and punctuation for consistency.

I was surprised to learn the names were deleted yet again, this time with the ascription the names did not meet "inclusion guidelines as well as having sourced connections to the school." Researching this further, I noted such names only require "a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group" (all do), double checked the names, and again restored the names to the section.

Aside from admiring Evan "Doc" Shaner and his decades of work in the mainstream and independent comic book industry, I have no connection to the names, the article, or Central Michigan University or Central Michigan Life. My initial edit was strictly for reasons of legitimate contribution. My subsequent edits are conscientious and to reasonable understanding of published standard.

Lastly, as I am long established on Wikipedia, I have respect and regard for the long-recognized contributions of Barek. Again I note, I was wrong in including the subject's humor in my edit.

All love, Surelyserious (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a discussion.
 * Regarding the content; I wanted to point out a clarification in terminology. You titled this discussion "famous alumni"; but the standard term on Wikipedia is "notable". The most convenient inclusion criteria to prevent arbitrary listings is the use of WP:BIO, and I see no reason to loosen that inclusion criteria for this article. From the WP:BIO guideline, Wikipedia has a means for determining who is notable, where it states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The additions appear to be claimed to have progressed to notable organizations; but notability is not automatically conveyed from employer to person.
 * You claim that all additions were verified ... but all we have is your claim. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, we need third-party reliable sources provided within the article for each individual added (or, better yet, having their own article where such references would be contained). Preferably, these should be added on each person's entry using a cite template; but even simpler references between tags would suffice. Such sources need to provide in-depth coverage, not passing mentions in order to establish notability; and also a source (either the same or an additional one) needs to state the connection of the person to this article subject (ie: CMLife). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insight into your effort here.
 * I am changing the title from "Famous alumni" to "Notable alumni". This is a pertinent edit.
 * On the topic of question of notability per WP:BIO the standard to which you are determining your edits is regularly but more importantly ordinarily subjective to the magnitude of the article's topic. For instance, in Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is notable as is Biggs Darklighter. However, there are degrees to which a topic is popular. Central Michigan Life is no Star Wars–yet the potency of its impact on individuals who later pursue journalistic and publishing endeavors is indeed noteworthy. Parallel to this, no one would rightly determine the notability of an alumnus of CML by whether or not they are as well known as Luke Skywalker or even Biggs Darklighter; the notoriety and fame of CML pales in comparison to Star Wars. Yet to those familiar with both CML and the periodical's journalistic tradition it's standing has a legendary quality to it ie look at how many of its alum go on to make real names for themselves in the fields of journalism and publishing. While this may not be relevant or notable to you or another, to those familiar with CML is is most relevant. That said, in respect to your point about transference, I will look further into the merit of inclusion of specific names on this list.
 * That said also, inference that names to be included must be sourced is more inconsistent than it is impractical yet it is also impractical. Particularly in more abstract and less broadly recognized articles, if a name is found not to belong or has been included for reasons which are obviously and consistently in conflict with WP standards, then editing is easily demanded and intended–particularly so by a noted and highly-regard WP professional such as yourself. However, when editing is merely for matters of sheer principal rather than a genuine interest in the broad definitive nature of Wikipedia (or the specific article) than I must call into question the purpose of such edits as being intentionally obstructive and hurdle-building. In other words, as with bureaucracies, such methods are a convenient way to keep undesirable contributions out and make it less likely for others to make contributions. This of course results in stagnation and demise so it is an unwise approach. In in case, I am working under the belief that is obviously not the case here and you and I are just working to do the best job we can for the greater good of all.
 * Even in larger college and university articles of broad fame, notable alumni are ordinarily not sourced. They are removed if untrue or irrelevant or fail to meet even the most minimally reasonable application of standards. So by this measure especially, I will research each name further to insure they are indeed notable particularly in measure of one to the other with respect to the place in the scheme of WP of Central Michigan Life to the rest of the world; it is relative. As they have stood for years before getting either your or my attention, and the single addition I made to the list is well-established/widely-admired comic artist Evan "Doc" Shaner, I would ask you allow me a day to complete this task before further deletions, Barek.
 * -Surelyserious (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's my frustration ... you have repeatedly quoted the applicable part of WP:BIO stating "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group". And you have claimed above that "all do" and stating you have personally already rechecked all names. Yet now, you are stating that these references which you claim exist and which you claim to have already verified are "impractical" to add here. If you already have looked to see the reliable sources exist, it shouldn't be that hard to then add them here.
 * From what I can see, my arguments for removal of the content is based on long-standing community agreed upon policies and guidelines; while your argument for keeping them are based on your liking them to be listed. That is not a viable argument. I have no problem giving you a couple days to try to fix the referencing issue as you requested. But, should those continue to be lacking, and you continue to restore unsourced entries, I will be taking the issue to a relevant noticeboard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already begun cleanup and would appreciate your feedback. It is significant work to do this and sourcing is not added on other pages with Notable alumni with significantly broader appeal ie The Daily Tar Heel.
 * Surelyserious (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I have not read the above per WP:TLDR, but I will say this. The only two entries that had sufficient indication of notability had no sources in their bios tying them to this publication. Consequently, there is no basis for even having a notable list per the guidelines for such lists, WP:NLIST, and I have removed it completely. I see no reason to search for sources for any of the entries as there were no claims of notability made for any of them. Even one if the two that actually had bios was very borderline for notability and I may nominate that article at AfD. On the subject of notability, I don't see it for the paper either. There is only one potential indication of notability, a claim of some award that is sourced to a dead link on the paper that is the subject of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a couple refs for awards to the publication, although they are only entries on lists. I'm not going to be available to edit much this weekend; but I suspect enough third-party sources may exist to improve the overall notability claim for the publication. If not found in time, I would support converting the article to a draft rather than full deletion. That said, the notability claims for the alumni list seems much harder to establish, so I agree with removal until references can be found.--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added all of the relevant references I could find. None provide in-depth coverage. If a third-party has written anything about CM-Life itself, perhaps someone from the publication will be familiar with where it can be found. Otherwise; if the award references are not adequate to establish notability, then it may be necessary to convert this article into a redirect to Central Michigan University, and to merge the awards over to that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support that merge. I'm not seeing notability here and WP:CHEAP. John from Idegon (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Although I deprodded this, the notability is in doubt so would agree to a merge to Central Michigan University including details of the awards, circulation and main facts, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge and redirect this article to Central Michigan University
I think we have a general support above; but I wanted to start a thread just to confirm consensus (or, if someone else wants to be WP:BOLD, they can go for it).

Several references were recently added (by me). However, they are all trivial mentions with the publication name on various award lists, and none of them provide in-depth coverage. Of the awards listed, I think the only one that appears to be of significance is by the Society of Professional Journalists. Even in that one case, CM-Life was a finalist, not the winner (the article reflects this by stating they are one of the top three) - so any notability is marginal at best.

Given the questionable notability, merging the major points into Central Michigan University then changing this article to a redirect seems to be the most reasonable solution. If no one disputes, I'll work on doing that in about a week (lets say on or after Dec 20th) if no one else gets to it before me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorse this with one caveat: don't merge anything but the most mundane (which probably isn't encyclopedic in a larger article anyway) without independent sources. I'm thinking primarily of circulation numbers. This paper sells ads. An audited circulation is required by law. Audit Bureau of Circulation is the usual source, but info is filed with the government too. John from Idegon (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect has been completed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)