- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
California Review
- California Review ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable college newspaper, almost entirely unverifiable original research TritonsRising (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
STRONGLY FAVOR KEEPING THIS ARTICLE. Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. [1] The California Review has received significant media coverage in reliable sources, including the San Diego Union Tribune [2], the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) [3], California Watch, a service of the Center for Investigative Reporting [4], Young America's Foundation [5], etc. It's a newspaper with a 35-year history of publication at UC San Diego, one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country. If it's not "notable", then we need to delete every article about *every* college newspaper. Bluerondo ( talk) 22:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".
- ^ "New UCSD racial incident sparks rage, confrontation". 2010-02-20.
- ^ "UC San Diego Freezes Funds to 33 Media Groups, Dissolves Student TV, Threatens to Punish Students for Protected Speech". 2010-02-23.
-
^
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/ucsd-muzzles-student-media-while-free-speech-groups-cry-foul-1167.
{{ cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=( help) -
^
http://www.yaf.org/news/report-from-the-trenches-at-uc-san-diego/.
{{ cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=( help)
- Seems to me that most of the sources you cited are either unreliable or do not cover the California Review itself, but mention it in passing or cite it. For an example of notability, look to the details provided regarding the Koala within your sources. The Koala appears to meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability; the California Review does not. That's my read of the situation. TritonsRising (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete Weak argument for keeping the article. There's no third-party "significant media coverage" of this publication online. The article has been tagged for bias for nearly two years and no effort has been made to improve it. It reads like a promotional piece and is almost entirely original research, with most of the citations being the paper itself (not viable) among a few three-decade-old archived stories. Links inserted by commenter above are one SDUT citation and the rest are opinionated niche sites that do not constitute significant coverage in the slightest. sixtynine • speak up • 00:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
In Favor of keeping a piece of UCSD's History on Wikipedia "I second the nomination to keep the article; present citations have been updated, and seeing there was nothing in context that properly follows the proposal for the article to be deleted, following a lack of second nominations, a lack of reason which constitutes such a proposal, and in passing the 7 day threshold, i will push forward for the article's proposal of deletion to be removed. Ptariche ( talk) 09:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:SKCRIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptariche ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 December 2016 (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.