Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Michigan Review


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Michigan Review

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No independent sources of a university newspaper. Delete per WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines TM 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.126.123 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete student activity at a single school, no particular claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve. Independent sources available, and meets WP:N. THF (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently an independent right-wing student newspaper at the University of Michigan.  Just considering the community it serves, it probably is more widely read than, say, the Presque Isle County Advance.  The article mentions but does not reference coverage in independent sources.  (I hesitate to call American Spectator "reliable", myself, but it is independent of this paper.)  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to fail WP:N due to a lack of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. The best notability evidence, press coverage of a couple of publicity stunts, seems weak.  Just being a contrarian paper (right-winger editors at a liberal campus) does not make it inherently notable. Claims that several former editors have had a bit of prominence similarly fails to prove the paper is notable. I could find at the paper's website no evidence it has a large circulation, or that it has won national college press awards, or that its articles have been widely cited. Claiming it is "probably more widely read than" some other paper are unconvincing. No student activity automatically deserves an encyclopedia article, any more than an article about a bowling league or a choral society or a camera club would. Edison (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. New York Times; Detroit News; CNN; Detroit Free Press; Washington Post; Fort Worth Star Telegram calls it the "dominant paper on campus."  And only one of those was for the "publicity stunt," which was notable. THF (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in what sense is being the dominant paper on a particular campus grounds for inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia? Newspapers are part of everyday school life, just like cafeteria meals, messy bathrooms and lockerroom towel fights. Encyclopedias don't document these things.  If it's an extraordinarily unique part of life at that particular school, it can get a couple of lines in the school's article, but not its own. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This one makes news. Several college newspapers--The Dartmouth Review, Harvard Crimson, Yale Daily News--are independently notable, even if not all are. This isn't a claim for every two-bit publication to get in; it's a claim that this is a notable publication on its own, and meets WP:N.  The editor-in-chief of the paper--no matter who it is--is regularly quoted in the media when it comes to nationwide controversies at this university, which has had several. THF (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They do not "make news", they may occasionally be called upon to comment on the news, though. None of the articles you cited was actually about the school paper itself, it's mentioned in passing, in one case in regard to a publicity-stunt bake sale held by some staff members. That is not the same as substantial coverage in reliable sources, nor does it imply or confirm notability of any sort. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true: the Ft. Worth article is about the newspaper; this Academic Questions article is about this and similar papers; as is this "Change" article and Washington Monthly article; criticism by the Review of the affirmative action "Mandate" made national news, and was mentioned in books about the subject; the New York Times article finds a Michigan Review article notable; and the bake sale protest made national news. THF (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I can't see the Ft. Worth article, so it might be okay. Lots of mentions in terms of finding a conservative view on campus, but only mentions.  Plus being on campus I've never seen anyone read it.  I've picked it up a few times, but never made it very far in.  The bake-sale did get coverage, but not sure that's exactly what makes something notable.  So weak keep is based upon the passing mentions (esp. the bake sale) and the claimed coverage in the Ft. Worth paper. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it certainly isn't the dominate paper on campus. It's probably #3 (behind the Michigan Daily and the everythree weekly (which may itself be out of print? I've not seen it about in a while.)Hobit (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article has no third party sources attesting to its notability. Delete per WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the arguments behind WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there are plenty of other examples of articles like this- see The Cavalier Daily as an example. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as precedent for inclusion on Wikipedia has been set and sources toward notability have been offered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just added a link to a list of every time it has been mentioned in the New York Times.  You can easily search for any major newspaper they claim it has been quoted in, and then look around the results to find something that would meet notability requirements.  Please spend a few seconds Googling for information, before trying to delete something.   D r e a m Focus  10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have amended your link. It was a Google search on how many times the words 'Michigan' and/or 'review' appear in the New York Times. Unsurprisingly this produces a lot of hits, mainly irrelevant to the article. pablo hablo. 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:AGF and go find those sources that were mentioned so that we have *something* besides the subject's own website to verify the existence of the subject and placate the deletionists. If this is a real school newspaper and WP:RS exist, then keep, period.Jwray (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice, good luck. But it's not just a matter of verifying existence - that's not in doubt. What you're looking for is evidence of notability (not to "placate" anyone, but to demonstrate why this student newspaper deserves an article). pablo hablo. 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Article itself is reasonably well-written and assertions of sourcing and notability have been presented. If the sources and notability don't migrate to the article so it's verifiable to all then a future AfD may be in order. -- Banj e  b oi   18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly weak. "assertions of sourcing and notability have been presented" - what does this even mean? pablo hablo. 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It means I've read the comments by others more familiar with the subject and assume in good faith their assessment of the sourcing and notability. I may feel differently if the article was poorly written or the other issues brought up here weren't addressed. -- Banj e  b oi   20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, I thought you meant that assertions of sourcing and notability were made in the article (which is where they're needed, not in this discussion) which meet with the requirements for notability etcetera. My mistake. pablo hablo. 21:21, 15 March 2009 (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.