Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingspan (Student Publication)


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wingspan (Student Publication)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article on a college newspaper. The article creator (since blocked as a user name violation) left a message on the talk page stating that this article was made "to reach out to more of an online focus" and that everything in the article is sourced to primary sources, specifically "our self made, self archived handbook/textbook". I think that with the awards this newspaper has won, particularly the National Pacemaker Awards (which I have been able to independently verify here), that one might be able to make a case for notability here, but this article needs to be blown up and started over if that's the case. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's a notable enough student paper for inclusion (for example, here's another verified award from the Scripps Howard Foundation), but there's almost nothing worth saving in the current mess. Hard to believe that award-winning student journalists could produce such a turgid piece of self-congratulation. Filing Flunky (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I should also note that despite the fact that the COI creator's last edit was in March 2010, the article at present is not all that different from the last edit made by that account: . &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails at WP:SPIP and notability criteria for print  media. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 10 December 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.