Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soton Tab

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 merge to University of Southampton. Link to University article from List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom v/r - T P 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soton Tab

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New university newspaper, which are not inherently notable, and this is not independently notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely with that level of readership it can justify an article in its own right? I'm sure it has a higher readership than many academic journals which have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.254.42 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion, but please read WP:42, as well as WP:BIG, which should provide some clarity as to the nomination, as well as the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see (same user, registered an account now). What would make it notable, or is the subject nature in your opinion inherently unsuitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave4291 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Dave4291 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obviously some news stories relate to the university, but others such as this one and this one, can also be found on the BBC here and here which surely does show its credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.158.50 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 152.78.158.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem is, these references aren't for the Soton Tab itself. References must be by reliable sources (these are) and be significant coverage (these aren't). Passing mentions of the paper don't count. Most University newspapers aren't going to be, but some are. Being in print less than two years makes it doubtful that it would be yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of the paper, we have the same readership as the union paper and higher then the media section, both of which have a page on here. We are also well known by all students in Southampton and have recently expanded into Southampton Solent.

We were just nominated for an award by the Union for student engagement in our first full year of operation.
Our articles and pictures have been requested by BBC and Hampshire police (Talking Heads Arson).
We have a Flickr account linked to the paper. We broke the story on sexual misdemeanors by Southampton students in the local hospital that was used as an associated press text by the whole country, I have scraps from a range of UK papers about the subject.
We also broke the story about the Hobbit pub being sued by Hollywood which became a worldwide story and led to our paper being front page on Reddit and referenced on a range of sites from Wikipedia itself to IMDB. I know that it doesn't seem a huge thing in the context of wikipedia, but there are many subjects on here which are less notable.
We have a daily readership of 5000 and our daily peak is 15000.

If this doesn't count as acceptable for Wikipedia then please explain why! --Tom Steadman (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read WP:COI. The other I have explained. Others are free to form their own opinions. This is a discussion, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly argue that by identifying myself as editor means it wasn't a COI, especially as I hand over my position tomorrow. However, i agree how it might look. I've looked for some references, as its really hard to do with a student paper but these are some i came up with. - Regular referrals from Thestudentroom.co.uk a poplular UK forum for university students - Mentioned in local news paper (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9585643.The_Hobbit_in_battle_with_Hollywood/) - Referenced in wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Zaentz#section_4 - List of student papers wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom This is the first time i've got involved with this sort of thing, i understand it might not work at the moment but have you any advice at what we could do to help us avoiding deletion in the future? --Tom Steadman (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand the concern of COI I believe that the complete deletion of this page would not be effectively enforcing the COI policy. Whilst COI are discouraged they are no banned and therefore any information which cannot be viewed as a conflict should be entitled to stand. For instance the inclusion of the editorial team clearly has no risk of any forms of conflict. Furthermore the mention of the 'Soton Tab' on the 'Wessex Scene' page which I assume has been written by a neutral is an admission of its existence as a publication. Furthermore with a publication such as this figures of circulation are unlikely to be held by anyone who does not have a conflict of interest and therefore this is unavoidable. Similarly as with the 'Wessex Scene' page it is clear that circulation figures do not need any form of referencing as theirs does not. On the balance of things I fail to see how this page does not have the potential to provide a 'neutral point of view' and therefore its deletion is useless, merely its content needs appropriate monitoring. --Daniel Hogwood (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) [reply]

Furthermore I would like to draw further comparisons with that of the 'Wessex Scene' page. The purpose of these comparisons are clear. As a student publication, similar to that of the 'Soton Tab' and at the same university comparison between the pages is useful. I notice looking at the history of the 'Wessex Scene' page 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wessex_Scene&action=history' the user 'Andre666' has edited the page at least four times despite the page clearly stating he was part of the publications committee in 2011-2012. The conflict of interest that would arise from this, in addition to the fact that a lot of contributions to that page have been made anon or by accounts which no longer exist it is difficult to justify the existence of their page opposed to this one. Clearly the purpose's are identical. They are there to inform the public with a brief history of the publications and in addition some functional information. In my opinion this has been achieved and therefore deletion is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference from Southampton University which confirms the Soton Tabs nomination for an EVA for engagement with the University. http://www.susu.org/eva/nominee-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.105.221 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 188.222.105.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for notability concerns. (Although COI is discussed above, COI is not the issue here and is not a rationale for deleting articles.) I sympathize with the editor's desire to see a Wikipedia article about his publication, but the fact is that Wikipedia does not have an article about every student publication in the world - only those that can demonstrate that they have some notability. This is an international encyclopedia and there are criteria for what kinds of things can have a standalone article here. Please read the Wikipedia criteria at WP:N as people here keep urging you. This online-only, 2 year old publication has simply not yet generated significant coverage from independent reliable sources, which is required regardless of whether it is judged as an organization or as a webpage or blog. In fact, the 70-year-old Wessex Scene only qualifies because it won a national award from The Guardian. (BTW how do you judge the "readership" of an online paper or compare it to a print journal? In any case an online viewership of 5,000-10,000 is not very impressive by Wikipedia standards.) If this article does get deleted, all is not lost; you can add a paragraph or so about the Soton Tab to the article University of Southampton, perhaps in the "Student Life" section. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whenever a booster appears at AfD it makes things easy, since it's reasonable to assume he/she will put the subject's best foot forward. Based on Mr. Editor's list of 3rd-party coverage, we're nowhere near notability. EEng (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Southampton and a level-2 bullet in List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom. I do have a heart for inherent notability of demonstrable student newspapers. Notable enough for merge; not clearly notable enough for a solid keep without a greater source review. JJB 05:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge into List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom as suggested by JJB. Newspaper is simply not notable on its own per WP:UNIGUIDE: Student life and university traditions articles are generally not notable unless they are sufficiently unusual that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university. NJ Wine (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per John J. Bulten. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leopard (newspaper), this outcome would be consistent.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.