Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harvard Salient

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. ✗plicit 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Salient

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

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because its subject seems non-notable (see WP:GNG).

I noticed this article had no sources, so it was my plan to add sources. However, I was only able to find this article here (republished here) mentioning it. Additionally, because the author of this source is a former editor of The Harvard Salient, I don't know that the source is "independent of the subject".

The notability guidelines for student media described in WP:STUDENTMEDIA don't seem to make exceptions to the more general notability guidelines described in WP:NMEDIA. Therefore, because the subject of this article does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and because it does not appear to be cited in reliable sources, I think the subject of this article is non-notable, and the article should be deleted. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Conservatism, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing any sources out there, one way or another (the bare handful of items I've found merely namedrop it, mostly in association with Ross Douthat). It doesn't help that the link to this publication's site is broken. The article sources none of its assertions, has never been adequately sourced, it punctures holes in NPOV, it is substantially unimproved in fifteen years, it's been tagged for nearly a decade, and violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the GNG. (Heck, it isn't even the most prominent right-wing paper on campus.) Ravenswing 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the previous AfD was rejected on the basis of 'bad faith', in that another longstanding publication had also been nominated for deletion. This is not a reason to keep the article now. I can't find significant coverage of this publication, fails WP:NMEDIA. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (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.