Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Satyrical Press


 * 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. I'm sorry Jonathan but the consensus is that this isn't notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Harvard Satyrical Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the school or publication Yaksar (let's chat) 05:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the vast majority of school newspapers and similar are not notable (even when the school is), and nothing in the article or elsewhere suggests this is any exception. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was hoping to find sources to save this but failed to find anything substantial. It does seem a particularly good student newspaper, but. If anyone finds good sources I'll be happy to change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is just a regular non-notable student newspaper. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding-- Jonathan (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete: Thank you for alerting me of the possibility of deletion this article. As the original author of the article, I, of course, believe that it is worth keeping. Harvard Satyrical Press was a small publication, however it had a devout circle of fans, contributors, and followers. Currently the site is down, I believe due to the recent graduation of the chief editor. I will work with him on finding a replacement, and "beefing" up the Wikipedia article.


 * Jonathan, the way Wikipedia works is that articles are kept based on evidence of notability. In the case of a publication, this means that other places, independent of it and themselves considered reliable sources, have discussed it in substantial detail. For example if you can show that some papers like the New York Times have talked about the Harvard Satyrical Press you'll be home and dry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Johnathan, it also sounds like you have a rather serious WP:COI problem as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:01, 7 June 2012 (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.