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. There is certainly no consensus to delete this article, but there does seem to be some agreement that it might be a suitable candidate for merging. I'd suggest starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page if editors are so inclined. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 23:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The Cambridge Student

The Cambridge Student (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Non-notable citing largely primary sources. "Keep" arguments in the previous AfD hinged on inherited notability from members and the associated institution, contrary to the current notability guidelines WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGSIG which have been introduced in WP:ORG since then. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep/merge This is the newspaper of the Cambridge Students' Union and so the worst case would be merger into that page. Per WP:ATD, deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Another non-notable student newspaper that fails WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:GNG. Coverage in the article is primarily from other student newspapers at Cambridge, which I am not inclined to rely on for notability purposes. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cambridge Students' Union since there isn't multiple in-depth sources about this, but it seems like a viable search term. So a redirect would be the best option IMHO. I don't think a merge is a good option though, because the sourcing just isn't there to warrant it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A WP:BEFORE search turned up enough to satisfy me. Most compellingly, there are two articles from The Independent, Cambridge University newspaper urges union to save ‘one of the best student papers in the country’ and Closure of Cambridge University student newspaper draws heavy criticism. After that, I found PCC: Cambridge University newspaper wrong to quote anonymous Nazi jibe against academic from Press Gazette. Neither of those are Cambridge-based publications, so that's GNG right there. And then there's a ton of outside coverage of the Philip Brooke scandal, much of which is predictably from non-reliable tabloids, but some of which I can't so easily dismiss, such as this article from York Vision. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep with rewrite, otherwise delete/merge into CUSU. It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). There is some argument that it meets WP:GNG, perhaps in terms of its history as an institution. I'm generally not persuaded by the links I've been able to find, nor by those quoted on this AfD.
  • The two articles from The Independent rely on TCS's inherited notability from the University of Cambridge. Even the newsworthiness of the move from print to online is doubtful: coverage of the move comes primarily from other student newspapers in Cambridge.
  • The Independent article seems to me to rely on inherited notability from the university and students' union. In justifying the claim that TCS is "one of the great Cambridge student institutions", it quotes an open letter of 60 people (a minuscule number for a student body of over 20,000), all of whom previously held positions at TCS.

I would vote keep for the article if it can be rewritten with a focus on its history rather than as a description of the newspaper as a contemporary institution. This stretches it as far as I can go because TCS is quite a young institution, just over 20 years old. Student newspapers can ebb and flow from student intake to intake, so it might be too soon for us to decide that TCS is non-notable, especially because it is backed by the students' union. Kohlrabi Pickle ( talk) 03:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:Notability (periodicals) is just an essay, and one that seems mostly tailored to academic journals; I prefer to look to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals for newspapers, which is also an essay but fits much better. And a rewrite would certainly be nice, but since notability is a property of the subject, not the page, it's not necessary.{{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 05:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge a few sourced sentences from this stub into the Union article on student life. Per above, the listed sources are not significant coverage—no depth into the actual newspaper and the superlative headline claim is coming from their own news staff and alumni. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 23:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am on the same page with Sdkb per his note above. Well said. At worst I would suggest a Merge into the student union article.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 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.