Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutgers Centurion


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers Centurion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG there are not third-party reliable sources anywhere in the article, a search of google news revealed nothing, and the only publication mentioning them in the sourcing is the main student newspaper at Rutgers. Fails WP:WEB too.

No idea how this non-notable thing has survived this long, but WP:DEADLINE will do... Cerejota (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Salon.com ran an article in 2005 here that has four paragraphs about The Centurion. The publication has been discussed in New York Times articles about founder James O'Keefe at least three times, here, here, and here. The Centurion has also been discussed in a profile of O'Keefe in the Star-Ledger here, and the Home News Tribune here. This publication has been discussed more extensively in reliable, independent sources than the vast majority of campus publications.  The article should be moved to a new name, The Centurion since that is the actual name of the magazine, not "Rutgers Centurion".  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Worth noting for context is that the article about The Daily Targum, the official student newspaper at Rutgers, is entirely unreferenced, including only external links to Targum websites on the main campus and the Newark campus, and a dead external link to a blog.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen, as you perhaps unwittingly mention, there is no sufficient independent coverage of this separate from James O'Keefe - regardless of your !v, your argument is one for merge and redirect into James O'Keefe, not a keep argument. Notability is not inherited. I am persuaded by merge and redirect, but there is no reason this should be kept as an article, as there is no significant coverage of this journal that is independent of James O'Keeffe. You feel me?--Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, I feel you and where you're coming from, but I have my own feelings (thoughts) too. Please note that the most significant, in depth coverage of The Centurion, the four paragraph description in Slate.com, mentions O'Keefe only in its first paragraph.  It discusses several other staffers by name as well, as the coverage goes on for another three paragraphs.  It is not at all unusual that some controversial and notable publications are almost always discussed in reliable sources in connection with their founding editors or publishers.  Examples that come immediately to mind include The Liberator and William Lloyd Garrison, Der Stürmer and Julius Streicher, and The Realist and Paul Krassner.  My informed guess is that it would be very difficult to find discussion in reliable sources of any of these three notable publications without mention of the three notable men closely associated with them.  So it is with The Centurion.  The same thing could be said of coverage in independent reliable sources of the San Francisco Examiner and William Randolph Hearst in the middle decades of that ill-fated newspaper's history.  In my opinion, (supported by what reliable sources say) The Centurion is as notable as, or far more obviously notable by Wikipedia standards than any college campus publication you can possibly mention, both because of and despite its early association with James O'Keefe.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of the examples you mention (which I recognize are not OTHERSTUFF arguments, but reasoned comparisons - a rarity around here, for which I commend you) the issue of non-independence is made moot by the issue of multiple coverage - there is extensive scholarly coverage of all of them that allows independent coverage. The Salon article, no doubt, is of the type that helps establish notability - and without considering the RS status of Salon.com itself - I would need to see one or two more articles of the same type in RS to make me change my mind that this warrants encyclopedic coverage independent of O'Keefe - to which I am open. The New York Times sources can be used as meat if the article is kept, but they do nothing beyond establishing existence, something I do not dispute. Policy ways, my argument is that it doesn't meet GNG because the coverage is not significant - there is only one source doing an in depth examination.--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, this is a good and illuminating debate. What do you think that community consensus would be, if you and I jointly nominated hundreds of article about college publications for deletion because they hadn't been discussed in depth in reliable, independent sources to a greater extent, say, than the coverage of The Centurion in Salon.com, which is a professional publication with professional editorial control, and also in the New York Times?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are going into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why ruin a good thing? I cannot speak, and neither can you, about the merits or demerits of those articles. I can say that if you proceed as suggested they would all get a procedural keep and your account blocked or even banned for WP:POINT. That said, I do not consider one source as enough for notability of a periodical, in particular as all other coverage is not independent of biographical figure. In other words, what I think we have here is a notable figure, O'Keefe, for which one of the points of biographical interest in founding a periodical. There is an alternative for deletion, which is redirect and merge the salon.com source into O'keefe's article, and I think its a good one, but I do not feel there is enough notability proven to support a single article. Perhaps that is the case with other periodicals, but this is the one I came across. (BTW, I recently redirect per WP:BOLD the Tampa Bay Times into the parent company's article because of the lack of notability didn't warrant an article of its own). Your argument, if I understand it, is that existence of coverage is the same as notability, and while that is one of the criteria, I think you are examining other considerations. I do believe in alternatives to deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I posed a hypothetical, and wouldn't nominate any article for deletion without looking at the cited sources (if any) and performing a search for sources as I did in this case. I looked at one other, The Daily Targum, and I discovered that it is unreferenced though that article makes a strong claim to notability.  It could be that the Targum article is an exception, and that the majority of the others are well-referenced.  Perhaps.  I readily accept that you believe in alternatives to deletion, but please allow me to point out with respect that you are the one who nominated this particular article for deletion, as opposed to "redirect and merge".  As for campus publications, we don't have any subject specific guidelines, but I think that established practice on Wikipedia evolves, in effect, into precedent and into an implied notability guideline.  And I think that our notability standards, in practice, are lenient with regards to publications in general and college publications in particular.  That is a small part of the reason why I support keeping this article, although I understand and accept the validity of the counter-argument you are making here.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed made a compelling case in discussion for a redirect/merge, that is what made me change my mind. Or are you sruprised a good argument can change people's minds? :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient sources provided to demonstrate notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Slate article and numerous non-substantial sources get this article just over the WP:N bar. – Lionel (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So just one source means notability?--Cerejota (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (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.