Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzaga Bulletin


 * 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 KEEP and MERGE with Gonzaga University. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gonzaga Bulletin

 * — (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a particulary notable paper. Article was written by user Samfrancis, who, coincidentally I'm sure, is featured in the article as Samuel Kensinger Francis. Otto4711 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gonzaga University  B e  a  rly  541  01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on 180+ different college newspapers and it's unclear why Gonzaga's is any less notable. Dragomiloff 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the articles on the other papers, but the existence of one aricle has no bearing on whether another article should exist. The question is whether the subject of the article is notable enough to stand on its own. I nominated it in part because of its obvious ties to the two articles on Sam Francis that I also nominated. I have now withdrawn those nominations but I still question whether this topic is sufficient to stand on its own. Otto4711 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The campus newspapers are in [] and Gonzaga is a notable enough university...I'm open to being convinced otherwise...the two Samuel K. Francis articles, on the other hand, look to me like vanity articles, all the more so because of the articles' subject's angry response to the proposed deletion of "his" articles. Dragomiloff 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Gonzaga University as the stubbish article was started by a former editor, a clear conflict of interest per WP:COI. B.Wind 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * merge because if the university is there, thats where its paper goes unless the paper is notably separately, which in this case it doesn't seem to be. I'd be glad to look at some of the other 180, for that matter.
 * 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.