Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Weekly

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. Skomorokh 04:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Weekly

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

Non-notable student publication. No significant independent coverage. Both references are to other University of Chicago ~~student~~ publications. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the UoC Chronicle Article, this newsweekly has a circulation of 10,000. Also, the UofC Magazine is not a student-run publication, but the official university magazine more directed to alumni, etc. see, [1] Many established student papers other than a school's primary daily paper have an individual page on wikipedia, such as Stanford Chaparral, The Georgetown Voice, and Tiger Weekly. --Milowent (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the Chronicle not being student-run, and have corrected that above. However, it is still affiliated with the university, which makes it not sufficiently independent to provide notability IMO. And the size of circulation doesn't inherently make something notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping either. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tend to think this is a keeper as a legitimate newspaper that has won awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their awards hardly seem noteworthy since that organization gives out literally thousands of awards a year to college papers. link to one year's listing for one award category — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First off, there are tens of thousands of "legitimate newspapers" out there that fail either of notability or verifiability: how many towns of any size in the United States, for instance, don't have some manner of local weekly? Secondly, following DroEsperanto's comment, "winning awards" is not part of any notability guideline on Wikipedia; winning major, significant awards often is. This isn't even the major student newspaper at the University of Chicago - The Chicago Maroon is. As far as reliable sources go discussing this paper in significant detail, as the GNG requires, it isn't easy, but "Chicago Weekly" + "university" on G-News returns a handful of hits referencing the paper's collapse and its rescue by an alternative area publication that doesn't seem itself to have an article. I'd finally take the paper's claim to a "circulation" of 10,000 with an enormous grain of salt. The entire student body of the University is only 14,000, counting graduate and part-time students. Are they seriously suggesting that 2/3rds of the student body read not the main student paper, but an alternative student newspaper? I'm willing to buy that the paper prints up 10,000 copies, but not a lot beyond that, and IMHO, claims to notability on that basis are deeply suspect and certainly unproven. Ravenswing 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any guidelines for notability of a newspaper? I wouldn't expect the existence of most newspapers to generate many mentions in other newspapers, except when they fold or have other controversies befall them. But to my mind, a newspaper of significant (weasel word - I don't know that there can be a set threshold) circulation is something worthwhile having an article on. For instance, were I to visit Salem, Oregon, I'd like to be able to find out that the Salem Monthly is the local alternative rag. And there's also the UWeekly in Columbus, Ohio, which is a 2ndary paper for Ohio State. That's why I decided to vote keep above. --Milowent (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, although there is an essay. And being useful or like similar to other articles doesn't make something notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can show me a reliable source confirming that circulation figure, that might be something; the UoC Chronicle does not, of course, qualify, and I stand by my remark about the suspect claim of "10,000 circulation" at a school with 14,000 students. Ravenswing 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Doc, thanks for the link to the newspaper essay, that is helpful, I need to remember that one. I know about OtherStuffExists, and I am employing it in terms of "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Going to the essay, the article currently reflects that the publication has won some awards, though they don't sound very special to me. Arguably, the publication also meets #5, "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets"--a significant publication to the UofC market. I'm not saying its a strong winner; its the close ones that generate more debate.

Re circulation: Ravenswing, the circulation figure isn't currently in the article; I cited it above because it seemed to be some evidence of notability. (here's a ChicagoBusiness article saying the purchase raised NewCity's circulation, but it doesn't say by how much. 14,000 students is pretty sizeable, and that wouldn't include the employees, academics, etc., who are part of the UoC community they are likely also a target of the publication.--Milowent (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, that may be an assertion of notability, but a suspect claim like that isn't evidence. By contrast, the Harvard Crimson, an internationally-known daily over a century old which is the lead student newspaper, claims a circulation of circa 20,000 with a student body over twice that of UoC. Ravenswing 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean the notable The Harvard Independent? :-) --Milowent (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said so if I meant it. I didn't think I'd have to draw out the example explicitly, but here goes: if a newspaper of the impact, history and fame of the Harvard Crimson, serving a university with twice as many students as UoC, has a circulation of 20,000, the odds that this indy, alt weekly, less than a decade old and having reorganized after failing has as large a circulation as half as many are damn near zero. Failing reliable, independent confirmation of the same, we can't consider it. Ravenswing 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, i was just being a bit silly noting that The Harvard Independent also has an article. I wait to see you confirm that it has a zero circulation just as you await my confirmation that it has 10,000 --Milowent (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No enduring historical notability attaches to a relatively insignificant student publication. Ray^Talk 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chicago Weekly was the successor to the Chicago Weekly News. And then there was a University of Chicago Weekly published by student which the NYT reports back in 1898. There is thus a long tradition of there being a student weekly newspaper at the UoC and we will have no difficulty developing this into a fine article upon the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What NYT article are you referring to? And the mere existence of similar publications (even if they were the same publication) for a long time does not make something inherently notable; see WP:OLDAGE. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be arguing above that the topic is not notable because the publication is young. They are mistaken. As for sources, please see the links at the head of this discussion. If you have not studied these, please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave the impression that I was opposing because of its age, then perhaps I was unclear. What I mean to express if the paper were 100 years old, that wouldn't inherently make it notable. In any case, according to this abstract, this particular publication is only "8 years old" as of 2003, so the 1898 article (and the rest before 1995) seem not to apply. Looking through the google news archive in that time period excluding "Chicago Weekly Tribune" (a similarly named but separate paper) and including "University of Chicago" (to exclude other similarly named publications), the results are few and weak, mostly people quoting reporters for the Chicago Weekly. The linked article above seems be the best one by far. I assure you that I have made an honest effort to find multiple quality sources. I would be thrilled if some turned up, but looking at what I've found the paper doesn't seem notable, and no one else has brought forth any quality sources yet. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Decent article on real-world newspaper at a world-class school in a world-class city. --AStanhope (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed this is a notable secondary newspaper for a major metropolitan area. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:39, 17 September 2009 (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.