Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vox Pop (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   delete. Way to early for an article. However, in some time, maybe this can be recreated. Tone 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vox Pop (newspaper)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanity puff-piece for online student newspaper which just published its first hard-copy edition today. Strong evidence of COI involvement; no hint of notability (footnotes are to paper's own website, quotes about its competition, or information about the college where it is published). Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's a University, not a college. Secondly, there is not hard copy, it is online. So clearly not been read. 2. I don't understand what the problem is about providing accurate information and allowing others to build on it by starting page for organisation. 3. This is one of a number of student newspapers on Wikipedia including over 20 in the UK. This IS a notable piece, but inexperienced user and poor explanation of notability requirements leaves sources not up to scratch.

More constructive advice on how to make sources notable would be appreciated instead of immediate poo-pooing.--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note mentions in The Scotsman, a national Scottish newspaper, and interview on BBC Radio Scotland. I think the university would also argue it's quite notable.--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Alexander is the Editor-in-Chief of this publication, and the most involved of the conflict-of-interest editors. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I fail to see that this is notable at the moment. It may become notable in the future, but at the moment, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to Alexander: The problem isn't about providing accurate information. The problem is that the publication is not notable as Wikipedia defines notability. There are very very few publications which are notable during the first few months (bare minimum) of existence. Saying "Other stuff exists" is not generally accepted as a valid reason for keeping this article. We are not discussing those articles here, but this specific one. Having mentions in The Scotsman and BBC Radio Scotland is nice, but they do not amount to significant coverage. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the article should not be deleted, however all unsubstantiated claims and opinion should be removed.RLimpkin (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC) — RLimpkin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, cannot be said to be a notable publication. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP this page needs to be kept, it may not be huge, but will be. it already has a readership or over 3,000 and has potentail to reach 20,000 beforew the end of october. this is a a page that in the future will be very used but deleting it will not only spoil wiki but the paper itself. if wiki is at all willing to keep freedom of speach it needs to keep thios page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevityDave (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — LevityDave (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment - oh, it's gonna be huge someday, huh? That argument is called "Up and coming next big thing", and it is not considered a very useful one. (See also WP:CRYSTAL.) -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this publication is being talked about all over campus and has gained a huge readership in the month before publication when the project was announce to students (have a look at their Facebook interest) and it has caused strong reaction from Aberdeen University Students' Association. I say that as a student at the university in question. Just happens that they made it themselves. The page history shows others are contributing. --Katiekitten2009 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Katiekitten2009 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - caused huge buzz on campus and supported by a number of student societies. Has been featured in local and national media and is taking part in and causing a lot of debates on campus. Clearly of use to students at this university.--Wright89 (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Wright89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment - if this is useful to students at that university, then it should be in a wiki for students of that university. Such arguments are not relevant here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide details about which local and national media have reported on this newspaper. I only see one news source on Google News. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * News Sources - On the 0756 and 1254 north-east only news bulletins on BBC Radio Scotland, the group were featured with a response from their Student President, Robin Parker, and from Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray. Being a news bulletin, BBC don't keep it online but you'll notice that one of them recorded it (a lot of background noise, clearly just using PC speakers and mic) to put on their YouTube page- www.youtube.com/voxpopaberdeen. Discovered that earlier. Reported by Caitlin Smith. They've also featured in the campus newspaper Gaudie (the focus of the campaign) in the September 2009 edition. That's not online, but is obtainable from AUSA if you contact via the website. They are also scheduled on a debate by a group called "Alternative Freshers' Week" on campus and are featuring on Aberdeen Student Radio next week (it's been the Freshers' Fayre this week, so have been able to find this out). Also can be found on NorthScot Media about a week ago - they're a private media group and I can't find them on Google News, but they have a website with a contact address.--Wright89 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Wright89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Being useful to the students at that university does not make it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Two short, very localised news bulletins does not make it notable enough - although BBC Radio Scotland would be counted as a national station, it was not nationally reported, only locally. Being featured on the campus newspaper does not make it notable enough. All of the references here seem to indicate that it is arguably important to the students at the university, but nothing to indicate its notability outside of its local area. I'm afraid that I would need to see much more significant coverage away from the local area to justify changing my recommendation above to keep. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not yet notable, not at all surprising considering it was launched only on Sept 19, 2009.    DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 September 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.

THE RESULT OF THIS REVIEW WAS NOT TO DELETE. COMMENTS SHOWED 5-4 MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN LEFT OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR HAD AFD TAG REMOVED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.114.205 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment left on user's talk page --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)