Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Titan Spectator

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 redirect to West Salem High School (Salem, Oregon). Daniel (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Titan Spectator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No independent notability, does not meet WP:NME. All sources are either primary sources or local news websites, meaning the paper barely notable within Salem, let alone elsewhere. Propose redirecting to school per WP:STUDENTMEDIA Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to West Salem High School (Salem, Oregon). One could argue that this technically passes GNG on the basis of coverage from the Salem Reporter and KATU. But if we're being technical, there's WP:1EVENT to consider, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:NORG, which would be the relevant guideline standard (NMEDIA doesn't—yet—have guideline status). Fundamentally, high school papers are generally only notable when they have a significant history, and founded in 2014 just isn't enough. It's a decently written article by student newspaper standards, so I'm glad it'll at least be kept in the page history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm updating my !vote to Neutral in light of the additional sourcing added by Alecpalm, particularly the Oregonian coverage, given that it's from Oregon's newspaper of record and that it demonstrates that coverage has been ongoing rather than only pegged to the 2019 cuts controversy. This is still definitely a borderline case, but I think there's enough sourcing available to write the article using primarily secondary references. The COI is something to be cautious about but not a reason for deletion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unsure about the authorship (and editorial oversight) of the Oregonian article, though; the byline is "Special to The Oregonian", while the end of the article is marked by "Nina Lopez, Parkrose High School". Could it be some kind of guest column? Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeno My assumption was that it was apart of an internship program or this journalism institute . The Oregonian uses a different tag mark for guest opinions. Alecpalm (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets Notability Criteria The article provides 5 secondary, significant, independent and reliable sources.

These articles are not trivial in nature and are full independent features. So this article is notable under general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. Addressing concerns about Wikipedia:AUD I included an article from the The Oregonian which is a statewide publication; with the addition of this it should appease Wikipedia:AUD.Alecpalm (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge per User:Sdkb. Also note COI for above user - Alec Palm is apparently the editor of the paper.Pipsally (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Obvious COI (if I recall correctly I was the one who notified them of it), and not notable. But redirects are cheap, I guess... Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note the corresponding draft. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, somewhere. The COI editor has bypassed AFC, and the sources here are mostly related to a one-time event. --- Possibly ☎ 17:55, 8 July 2021 (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.