Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Register Forum


 * 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. While additional sources were provided, even the editor who posted them realized that they did not suffice to, at the very least, merit !voting in favor of keeping the article. ✗ plicit  13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Register Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PRODUCT. References either don't work or seem to link to its own webpage. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails the GNG and any pertinent notability criteria. For pity's sake, we don't accord notability absent sound third-party sources to a college student paper, let alone a high school paper.  The article's claim that this is the oldest student newspaper in the country is not only unsourced, it's neither mentioned on its own or the school's website.  No useful content to merge that's not already in the Cambridge Rindge & Latin article.   Ravenswing      13:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was able to find a number of sources; it's mentioned in conjunction with the reopening of the school in 1980, and in 1981 as well. There's also a 1980 article devoted entirely to the paper. Who knows if this clears GNG; it seems kind of murky to me. There might be other sources as well (I only searched in Massachoochoo). jp×g 21:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Only the last of those three refs could remotely be considered to qualify under the GNG, and it certainly falls short of WP:GEOSCOPE. The first two are fleeting mentions.  The GNG requires that the subject receive "substantive coverage" for a source to qualify.   Ravenswing      23:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you're right here; I will change from "weak keep" to a mere "comment". jp×g 02:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:36, 26 October 2021 (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.