Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department Of


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Department Of

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable publication. Unfortunately, due to the subject's name, it is very difficult to find coverage for it, if they exist (which doesn't seem to be the case). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the article is deleted, it could be freaky enough to be added to WP:DAFT. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP Narutolovehinata5 has a history of speedy deletions and I felt that said user was a little hasty to censor and put department of up for deletion delete without thorough explanation of how one could defend their page. After reading through the 5 pillars of wikipedia it seems that the only comedic publication at a university (with 10,000+ potential readers) started by a group of undergraduate women could be deemed notable, especially given the gender divide in the world of comedy. The definition of notable is subjective, however if you have a particular definition of what is 'notable' and what is 'not notable' I would be more than happy to hear it out (it is not specifically described in the wiki guidelines). If you were to be the sole judge of what is and is not notable, that is in and of itself another form of censorship-- something I'm sure the wikipedia community frowns upon. Chinese leaders have deemed the Tiananmen Square Protests as "not notable" enough to put in textbooks just as the state edu committee of the state of Texas also felt that Thomas Jefferson was not 'notable' enough to be in a US History textbook. I'm obviously not equating these instances of censorship with the potential deletion of this page, however I thought it was worth bringing up the example to convey a point that it would be in some respects unfair to delete this page solely because you deem it to be "un-notable". Though I realize that this comedic publication is not the NY Times or the Yale Record, I feel that it is odd to name a comedic magazine that caters to 10,000+ students and alumni as not notable. We have added a few more links to the page to provide some evidence of its existence. I understand that the title of the publication is very vague, but were hoping to hear your thoughts on what else we could do to fulfill the community guidelines.  thanks for reading! Gloriafrankensteinem (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Gloriafrankensteinem


 * the notability guideline is the WP:GNG, so whether or not the article should stay is nothing about 1) who wrote it, 2) whether they'd accept it in a Chinese textbook or 3) whether Jefferson should be in the textbooks of Texas. It is everything about whether your publication has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A link from your university is not a reliable independent source. Do you have any other mentions in books or independent regional or national media? JMWt (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to whether the publication has "significant coverage in reliable sources" I'd have to say no, not yet. Further, in no manner did i refer to the notability of an article being defined as the three subcategories you mention. As someone who has always used wikipedia for digestion of random information, I was not aware of the strict acceptance and deletion guidelines when creating an article. I did not realize that something had to be of national significance to be included as you put in your response. Your clearly irritated and rude response to a new user in the wikipedia community is completely off-putting and a poor representation of what this open learning and teaching community should be.


 * nope, not irritated nor angry. I was just trying to separate what is actually an argument for keeping an article from what isn't. As I have recently said to another new editor here, it is unfortunate that your article has ended up here at AfD, which can be hard to understand. But the guidelines are pretty clear that you need independent secondary sources to show notability as per WP:GNG.  In future, I suggest that you might want to read WP:YFA, submit the article for review and ask for help if you are not sure about anything. I hope you keep editing, this process is not an attack upon your person, but a long-accepted mechanism for quality checking wikipedia articles. JMWt (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete as per author's comments that it does not meet the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not all publications are notable (see also Notability (newspapers). This one fails to show why it is encyclopedic, per cited policies. Could perhaps be merged to its university page or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick t c s 08:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 08:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable college publication that just started this year. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Small scale publication does not seem to be notable now. If it becomes so in the future then write an article.Borock (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2015 (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.