Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Morning (newsletter) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. The discussion is split between keeping and merging. In either case, deletion is not warranted, and a definitive decision on a merge can happen outside of the microscope of AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning (newsletter)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Monday Morning (newsletter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the content is somewhat different, the topic is no more notable than it was when the article was deleted two days ago. As the references in the article reflect, there's a lack of independent source with which to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of useful external links that clearly show that Monday Morning is a student media body and newsletter that is recognized even by another national newspaper named The New Indian Express. Apart from this, mentions in other websites have also been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzival221B (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Hindu is the only source that meets GNG. The other two mentioned are promotional (Careers 360) or do not contain SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth (Indian Express).   // Timothy :: talk  17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially hopeful as there were 2 keep votes but now that there is a delete vote, I think I need to clarify a couple of things. First is that both The Hindu and The New Indian Express are newspapers of national repute. A mention in them is impossible if an organization or person is not notable. Needless to say that Monday Morning has more than a mention; it has an entire article in one while an entire paragraph devoted to it in them. In addition to this, it must also be noted that the student newsletter/ media body of a public university comes under the indirect purview of the government itself. And National Institute of Technology Rourkela is a fully government-funded university of national repute. It can neither promote itself nor consider the option and hence Careers360, an independent educational website must also be considered. Last but not least, if there is anything to modify in the article feel free to inform here. Parzival221B (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: to points above: No one is diputing that The Hindu and the New Indian Express are reliable sources, they are sources of national repute: the issue is SIGCOV. An "entire paragraph" is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; Government oversight and funding is not relevant to notability, but it does mean government sources are not IS RS; Government organizations self promote all the time. The claim "A mention in them is impossible if an organization or person is not notable." is nonsense, but yes as you state these are mentions, not SIGCOV. Careers360 is a fine site, but they do run promotional content; this is not bad, lots of fine sites do it, but it does mean it does not count towards notability of the subject under discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  08:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I respect your opinion and hold high regard for your in-depth knowledge about the issues in the article. But the thing here is that we cannot expect a student news media body to have so much coverage in the mainstream media. And this is not just the case with Monday Morning but pretty much most other student media bodies as well. I will request you all to go through the wiki article of 'The Doon School Weekly', another Indian student news media body/newspaper. It has barely a handful of insignificant mentions (that too not primary) and yet the page seems to have no issues. Then there's a student magazine from New Zealand named Gyro which also barely cites any references and yet has no issues mentioned and the list goes on. I apologise if I am wrong in this matter as I'm a newbie here but I need to pose this question to know what faults remain in the wiki page of MM. Parzival221B (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be worth reading WP:GNG, Parzival221B. The criteria used to judge whether topics should have Wikipedia articles is whether they've been covered in depth by multiple, reliable sources. Your argument that "we cannot expect a student news media body to have so much coverage in the mainstream media" is essentially an argument that student newspapers do not meet the notability criteria, which I would agree with. It might be that the other article you mention should be deleted too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete changed !vote to Merge, see below. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)- I agree that nothing has changed since this article was deleted earlier this month. However, the issue is SIGCOV, which this does not meet. Onel5969 TT me 19:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern here is that these two sources are barely used in the article, and I don't see much prospect of this changing if the article is kept, given that they're both from 2012 (some historical material could be based on them, maybe). That leaves the rest of the article to be based what Hobit calls "a bunch of poor sources" - i.e. non-independent ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check the Wiki articles of other student newspapers (see List of student newspapers); you'd realize that even the coverage that Monday Morning has got in national newspapers is not easy to find for many other student newspapers (see Gyro (magazine), Chaff (newspaper), Universitas (newspaper) ). And of those student newspapers which have SIGCOV, many have it for the wrong reasons. Also, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Plus we have 2 SIGCOV sources here, another thing missing in Wiki articles of many student newspapers. I believe student newspapers should be covered by Wikipedia (from moral point of view) since student media is still in its nascent stages at most universities around the world. If there is any part of the article content to be trimmed, you all are free to do so. There are pics of major events and initiatives to support the content too. Parzival221B (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela#Monday Morning. The above sources are not significant coverage. TNIE (p. 3) and The Hindu only cover this topic in cursory detail—altogether sourcing a paragraph about this part of student life in the context of the university but not as an independently notable affair. It wouldn't be possible to cover this topic without deferring to primary source original research and indeed, look at the article's current state. Careers 360 has no editorial credentials. It should not be used as a source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth is an article on this topic not significant coverage? The Hindu article is exactly about this newspaper/newsletter. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good suggestion, Czar. I'd support a merge of material that can be sourced to the NIT Rourkela article as an alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still unclear what your argument is that this doesn't meet WP:N. We have two reliable sources. Both with more than trivial coverage. It meets WP:N. Not with a ton of room to spare, that I'll grant you. But it's there and the sources are not about trivial things, but rather the impact this has had on its community. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        For two sources to be "enough", i.e., to write an entire encyclopedia article on two sources alone, they'd have to have incredible depth on the subject. These sources do not. We'd be lucky to squeeze a single paragraph of material relevant to a general audience out of these sources. That is not "significant coverage". If this changes in the future, that's why we have summary style—it could always split back out if warranted by an overabundance of sourcing. czar 16:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not even vaguely what our policies and guidelines say. At this point you are into WP:IAR territory. That's a fine place to be, but don't pretend it has anything to do with our actual inclusion guidelines. Once WP:N is met, we can use other reliable sources, including those that aren't independent. And nothing says the article needs to be more than a few paragraphs. If you want to form consensus for a merger as an editorial issue, that's fine. But that discussion goes on the article talk page. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          The second clause of the definition of significant coverage: what can we extract without regressing into original research? If next to nothing, then "WP:N" isn't clearly "met" as the coverage isn't significant. Short text, by a lack of secondary sourcing, is a predominant reason to merge. Alternatives to deletion are fine AfD topics. czar 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Czar Cordless Larry I repeat this. Please check the Wiki articles of other student newspapers (see List of student newspapers); you'd realize that even the coverage that Monday Morning has got in national newspapers is not easy to find for many other student newspapers (see Gyro (magazine), Chaff (newspaper), Universitas (newspaper) ). And of those student newspapers which have SIGCOV, many have it for the wrong reasons. I guess student newspapers are given relaxations and at this point of time the page has SIGCOV from two of the largest newspapers of India to justify its notability as a student newspaper. In a nutshell, even less significant and notable student newspapers have been able to have standalone pages of their own, that too without any issues. I don't see any reason why the page on Monday Morning, an organization which has SIGCOV (a rarity amongst student newspapers) needs to be merged. Parzival221B (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Parzival221B, no, the requirements aren't lower for student newspapers than other articles; they still need significant coverage (which doesn't have to be positive in tone - Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to promote their subjects). If other articles exist despite a lack of significant coverage, they should be deleted, but that has no bearing on the outcome here. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Incidentally, I've rewritten the Chaff (newspaper) article based on a number of sources I was able to find. To my mind, the extent of the coverage it's received means that it's a perhaps unusual case of a student newspaper that does meet our notability threshold. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              Since I was pinged, I'd just clarify that those articles need to be evaluated on their own merits and might end up merged as well. Appearing in a paragraph in a national newspaper is not in itself a sign that we can support a full article on the topic. czar 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              It's not just described extensively in a paragraph of The New Indian Express but also has an entire article devoted to it in The Hindu Czar. And coming to the coverage of Chaff (newspaper), it is mostly due to the Mao Zedong controversy. As editors, wouldn't it be in the best interests to include a student newspaper with positive impact rather than a controversial one? And here, it even has two SIGCOV sources which meet WP:GN easily and a third independent Careers360 which you term as promotional (but is not) Cordless Larry Parzival221B (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              If you think there's "extensive" content, write the article/section. I don't see enough nearly content in those two sources to say anything of substance without leaning on primary sources. Chaff is off-topic. I think we've all heard each other out at this point, so I won't be responding to future pings. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 06:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parzival221B, as I've explained already, Wikipedia policies don't prefer "positive" coverage over "negative" - it's the extent of it that matters. You might also want to consult WP:COI and WP:NPOV if you're here to promote the subject of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CzarThe shorter of the two sources we are discussion is 3 paragraphs long and about 350 words. I'm not sure why you are claiming there is just one. Could you explain?Hobit (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Twinkle tag was added too. Now, I won't be writing anything else but this is a general message to the community. Please start giving importance to positive coverage. The student newspapers are run by the youth and the lack of differentiation between negative and positive media coverage is a potential threat. Many student-run media bodies might interpret that they need to do something to appear on headlines and might do controversial things just for fame. Now, I know this isn't the place to discuss this but Ethics is important, especially on a knowledge-rich platform like this. What if the Monday Morning Team thinks they too would need to put a controversial cartoon or pic on their site just to appear on headlines of national newspapers? Parzival221B (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela#Monday Morning as per Czar, simply not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. Onel5969 TT me 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Onel5969 can you please tell me which standalone article in List of student newspapers has in-depth coverage? And coming to the example of Chaff (newspaper), I believe there should be an article about the Mao Zedong controversy and not Chaff (newspaper) because the controversy was highlighted by the newspapers and Chaff itself was sidelined. I still cannot see why the cited sources are considered as SIGCOV for 'Chaff' when they are actually SIGCOV for the Mao Zedong controversy. How about creating a standalone article for the controversy and then merging Chaff (newspaper) in that? The action of merging Monday Morning with the NIT Rourkela article is as absurd as that. Though it is the college's student media body, it's independent. Merging will only make readers believe that Monday Morning is completely controlled by NIT Rourkela staff/faculty rather than being a student-run media body which it actually is. In essence, it creates a wrong perception on readers' minds.Parzival221B (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parzival221B, on your first question, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there are articles on that list that should be nominated for deletion (I'm certain there are), please do so. On Chaff, there are independent sources that cover the newspaper in general, not just the Mao controversy, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If you'd like to propose moving the article, I suggest starting a discussion on its talk page and trying to achieve consensus for proposed changes. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm seeing above is the editors who favor merging/deletion trying to apply a ridiculously tight interpretation of GNG in the face of sources that clearly establish GNG; I fully agree with Hobit that the delete case rests on IAR at this point. I do not buy Parzival221B's argument that the fact the coverage is positive should make us want to keep, but I do think we ought to consider the nature of newspapers (as compared to spammy businesses) when weighing how strictly to apply our criteria. As WP:NMEDIA explicitly articulates, there is clear encyclopedic value in erring on the side of inclusion for newspapers, as they may be used as sources and an article helps readers assess their credibility, something that aligns with our broadly defined mission to improve knowledge ecosystems. It'd be one thing to resort to IAR to try to delete a UPE's marketing attempt, but to resort to IAR for this? The sourcing here is sufficient even if we apply our standards strictly (albeit not with a ton of room to spare), and we should be applying them loosely. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick procedural note: The talk page with the project tags was never un-deleted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:16, 29 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monday_Morning_(newsletter)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079956501"