Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Progressive Nation

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Progressive Nation

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

Non-notable student publication. No secondary sources supporting its notability independent from the University. Appears to be defunct (its website has lapsed hosting). Axem Titanium (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:35, 1 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the seven magazines in the infobox of the fourth oldest university in the U.S., which is a top 10 university and an Ivy League icon, an American icon and university to conjure with. The magazine is also the merger of two previous publications, which will each provide further sources for research, coverage, and information. Compare: The Harvard Ichthus, The Harvard Voice, Harvard Salient, Harvard Satyrical Press, The Gamut, The Harvard Independent, etc. UPDATE: OK, it may no longer exist (hard to tell; still listed on the official University site, with an e-mail adress. Could e-mail that address and ask about current status). But even if it is defunct, it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that the two magazines that merged to create it were notable? I don't think a student-run magazine of an Ivy League university (or any university) is automatically notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the parent organization. Each newspaper/magazine needs to prove its own independent notability, through third party sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't AFD the time to decide whether it is or not? The article has been around for 6 years with no secondary sources. A quick jaunt in the Google turns up a dozen primary sources, which can't be used as evidence for notability, but not secondary/tertiary sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - A school's notability is not transferred to all student organizations. This must prove itself to be notable in its own right through its own coverage, which it does not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:26, 7 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - student activities and organizations are not normally considered notable unless there is coverage from outside the university or college, and none is shown here. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 17 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.