Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Justice (newspaper)


 * 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 no consensus. Even after discounting the COI and likely canvassed accounts, there's no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Justice (newspaper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. I did propose a redirect to Brandeis University but this was reverted. Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep indeed I reverted your redirect which points at a few words on the university page, which is too long a page to permit any real discussion of an editorially independant publication. No evidence presented here or elsewhere that a student newspaper published since 1949 is not notable. We even have categories for student newspapers so they are not inherently non notable. As a very experiemced AfC reviewer I accepted this page from Draft. I have a very good track record of decerning what is and is not a notable topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ummm ... then you found significant coverage in independent reliable sources of this campus paper? Spiffy.  Where are those sources?  Because every single citation in the article is either to the paper itself or to Brandeis publications. That being said, of course student newspapers aren't inherently non notable, but neither are they inherently notable, whether first published in 1949 or 1649. Obvious failure of the GNG is obvious. (By the bye, User:Boleyn, with a quarter million edits over a decade's time, is not what I'd call inexperienced at gauging notability herself.)   Ravenswing    20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know the nom, but I know as a prolific AfC reviewer I've become pretty good at assessing pages. Thanks for the link to arguements to avoid - which apply exactly to the waive of the "not notable" wand without any basis that this nomination is comprised of. The paper itself is a reliable source and I believe darn near every editorially controlled print publication is inheriently notable. We are not talking about a fence post here but a newspaper. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Errr ... no. You must know that under no circumstances can any entity be a reliable source to bolster its own notability: the very definition requires an "independent" source, so no Brandeis-connected source can count.  As to whether every editorially controlled print publication is inherently notable, would you mind linking the guideline saying so?   Ravenswing    00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Justice has been cited by other news organizations such as the New York Times, an example of which is linked, which is explicitly in the article. The institution of journalism builds upon itself, and The Justice is a notable part of University culture. Hence, although Brandeis is a small school that is relatively new with a limited history, broadening our readership is a goal of ours, and we the paper continue s to expand. A limited amount of resources does not make the paper notable. If the NYT did not deem the paper worthy of citation or reliable they never would have sited it. jengeller9, 19:58, 4 November 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengeller9 (talk • contribs) ; edited by jengeller9 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello, I am the individual who created this article entry. As a student newspaper for Brandeis University, the first one created at the school at that, we are the paper makes a notable aspect of the University that publishes weekly. Our The work is read throughout the University and the world and reaches a broad audience on our the website. The Brandeis Hoot, the other newspaper of Brandeis University, has its own page and on this campus, but we are the Justice is a separate entity. The two newspapers are not affiliated. We were The Justice established in 1949, almost 60 years before the Brandeis Hoot. If there are improvements that can be made to the article itself, I would be more than happy to address those. jengeller9, 13:24, 4 November 2018; edited by jengeller9 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * see Category:Student_newspapers_published_in_Massachusetts which has quite few entries just for a single state. Why are all these papers notable but not this paper. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On that note, why do other student publications have pages and this one cannot? What makes this one less notable than any other student newspapers? jengeller9, 4 November 2018
 * It's entirely possible that a bunch of those aren't notable either, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. --tronvillain (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. I found two other references (Marcuse letter and Brandeis newspaper delays publication), and have added the latter to the article, but still do not think this is enough to meet notability. Tacyarg (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am failing to understand is that despite proving that the Justice is an entity that is independent of another organization AND that this is a student-run newspaper — of which many exist in Massachusetts and around the country — it is not notable. The University sites the newspaper, large media corporations have sited the paper (an example of such has been linked several times), and readership is worldwide. What am I missing that makes this organization not notable? jengeller9, 15:36 4 November 2018
 * Hi jengeller9. For me, it's the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. When I searched for your newspaper, I could not find other media discussing it in any detail - there were a couple of passing mentions and the Boston Globe article I have added. So, for instance, the article mentions the paper's role in publicising the university's financial ties to South Africa. If a reference was cited where an independent, published source had described the paper's activism and the effect on the university, that would be coverage which could count towards notability. Does that help? Tacyarg (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many other student papers just in Mass have been found notable. I don't understand the hate against this paper. Most of its existence is preinternet which makes finding sources harder. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are three distinct articles the Justice has been mentioned in. Two are by the New York Times and the third is by American Thinker. One New York Times and the American Thinker article are cited in the Wikipedia article. 1) Brandeis Roiled by Holocaust Ad, 2) Brandeis Cancels Plan to Give Honorary Degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Critic of Islam, 3) The Brandeis University Debacle. These are not Brandeis and cite the Justice in articles about Brandeis. I will insert the last article by the NYT into the Wikipedia page. jengeller9, 19:23, 4 November 2018
 * Incidental mentions aren't "extensive coverage" and those last two links are definitely incidental mentions, though they might count as being cited by a reliable sources. The first NYT article would seem to count towards extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep: Seems to have been cited relatively often by reliable sources, plus some mentions as a subject. So, the relevant notability criteria are at WP:NMEDIA, right? Specifically, WP:STUDENTMEDIA, which says Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet. A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves. Just want to be clear here. --tronvillain (talk); edited 23:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There was certainly coverage of an incident involving The Justice in 1993, see e.g., though that incident does not appear to be described in this article. Bakazaka (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As User:tronvillain said based upon their criteria, the Justice is therefore allowed to serve primarily the Brandeis community and still remain notable. However, other notable news sources have referenced The Justice. jengeller9, 19:47, 4 November 2018
 * 1) In an AfD discussion you only !vote once, meaning the bolded keep or delete or whatever should only be bolded in one of your comments, to help the closing admin evaluate the discussion. 2) It looks like you're signing your comments with copy/paste or manually, but a much easier and automatic way is just to type four tildes in a row at the end of your comment, which will insert your username, link to talk page, and the date without any further effort. Bakazaka (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; this is my first wikipedia article and so my first time dealing with voting-based pages. I appreciate your help!!! jengeller9, 20:18, 5 November 2018
 * Yes, simply being a student paper doesn't make it inherently non-notable, but it would be presumed to be notable if it meets at least one of 1. have produced award winning work 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources 5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. Thus far, I'm not sure any of those are met - a couple of references to the paper doesn't establish "frequently cited by other reliable sources."
 * following the green cited criteria " 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" is met. Paper has been continously published since 1949 right? That seems to be a significant history of almost 70 years. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply existing for a long period of time does not establish "significant history." It establishes history, not that the history is significant, or the criteria would simply be "has been published for x number of years." --tronvillain (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Significant history = being published for a long time. That is plain English. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, simply being published for a long time does not establish notability. The history itself needs to be of significance. --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is twisting the simple english meaning. How in the world do you decIde what is Signifocant history vs insignificant history and to whom? I have no relationship to the school amd could care less about it, but the history of my own school is significant to me and those connected to the school. Therefore the intent behind "significant" must be a reference to time, or in other words not a blog started last month or a two issue paper that quickly folded and everyone forgot. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If "significant history" was intended to mean "being published for a long time", they could have simply said that, or "long history", or (as I said before) "has been published for x number of years." And clearly, significance of history would be established by coverage of that history in independent reliable sources, just as are other aspects of notability are - personal significance to those attending or related to the school is irrelevant without that. --tronvillain (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, some listed in the article, some listed in this discussion, and some available in newspaper archives. I have added a talk page section and article section template to get more attention to the close paraphrasing of sources, since that is a potential copyvio concern, but that is likely an editing issue that does not rise to a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wonder if a CoI tag and discussion on user page would also be useful? Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that jenguller9 describes the work of the paper as "our work", they might definitely want to consider WP:DISCLOSE. --tronvillain (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Several other sources referencing The Justice were just added into the article. Jengeller9 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good to see sources, but it would definitely be helpful to readers (and be much more consistent with Wikipedia article format and style) to turn the Justice-specific content of those sources into prose, then cite the sources as references. It might seem like adding more and more citations would be helpful, but Wikipedia editors have seen a lot of people doing this to promote or otherwise overstate the importance of an article subject, so it can come across as promotional rather than encyclopedic. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * talk was your removal of the links a formatting concern? What was the rationale behind that? Jengeller9 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While potentially evidence supporting "frequently cited by other reliable sources", I moved the list to the talk page for reference because it's a completely unsuitable list for an article. It might be possible to incorporate some of it into the article, like the controversy about their coverage of the sexual assault awareness event. --tronvillain (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Ravenswing's objections seem to have been addressed by subsequent edits. Regarding each of the criteria for notability- 1. have produced award winning work- Ditkowski's award for the article on doctoral program funding cuts, noted on the page under "Digital era", is one such instance. 2.have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history- The website for Brandeis's official history frequently relies on articles published by the subject dating back to the school's founding, indicating "historic purpose". The subject's "significance" is to the school community through the content it publishes and distributes weekly; this should be sufficient for a campus publication. 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area- I'm assuming "Subject area" refers here to Brandeis students and the school's administration. Citations on this page indicate that reputable news outlets do treat the subject as an "authoritative" source on news developments regarding Brandeis affairs. 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources- "Frequently" is obviously relative, but for the subset of issues about which Brandeis has received attention from reliable media outlets (ie. the retraction of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's honorary degree in 2014), the subject's articles are frequently cited.5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets.- The subject has been the student newspaper since 1949, essentially since Brandeis's founding, and its printing and circulation around campus is presumably funded by the school. That seems to demonstrate continued significance to Brandeis University- clearly a "non-trivial niche market." The Misunderestimated Decider (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading this article, (User talk:The Misunderestimated Decider) brings up some very valuable points. This article has been sufficiently edited to fully comply with all five of the criteria of what makes an article notable if it is a student newspaper, and only one point is necessary. The Justice has a significant history and it appears from the edits that it is perfectly notable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Repeating (User talk:The Misunderestimated Decider) would be a waste of time, but I second all of their points. Wikihelper3921 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2018 (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.