The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was some support in the latest AfD, which has been closed with no consensus, for a merge, so I'm starting a formal discussion about that possibility. Since the AfD close, I've removed the worst of the original research and unsourced content from the article. I favour a merge because we only really have two reliable, independent sources and they are both quite old now, so there's not much to base a detailed article on. National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is not particularly detailed itself, so there's plenty of space for a section on this newsletter, which can be spun out into a separate article again if more independent sources emerge. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. For anyone who wants to review it, here is the AfD; Cordless Larry was the nominator. Merging/redirecting is what we do for student newspapers that are not notable enough to stand on their own. As was established at the AfD, the sources in this case [1][2] qualify for GNG. Even after Cordless Larry's pretty severe trimming, the article is still long enough that it would be completely WP:UNDUE at the university page, where student publications generally merit at most a short paragraph. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have been clear: what I'm advocating is a selective merge, mostly of material that is supported by reliable, independent sources. The material I trimmed was mostly unsourced or original research, but what's left is still based mainly on primary sources, many of which don't actually support the material they accompany. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As ((u|Sdkb)) said, one can refer to the AfD. The severe trimming by Cordless Larry was not really necessary with a lot of substantial content about the history, hierarchy and projects being removed. All this could have been done after the consensus of Merge/Keep was over. Even then, removing half the article content without even discussing on the talk page is not justified according to WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:WPEDIT . A lot of sources that supported content on the page were removed too. Besides that, a section quoting notable interviews (of people who had wiki pages of their names infact) were removed despite having links to the original interview pages. Despite all of this, Monday Morning still remains a notable subject with content and sources which are more than what current standalone Wiki articles of student media bodies/ newspapers have. And I really don't get why "National Institute of Technology, Rourkela is not particularly detailed itself, so there's plenty of space for a section on this newsletter" was told by Cordless Larry because this isn't how Wikipedia works and there's no reasoning at all in the argument. What do you mean by merging the Wiki page of one of India's largest student media bodies into the Wiki page of the 16th best Engineering College in the 2nd most populous country in the world? Parzival221B (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's perfectly legitimate to remove unsourced content from articles, Parzival221B, as WP:PROVEIT explains. You mention that the list of notable interviews was sourced, but it was sourced to the interviews themselves. Those references demonstrate that the interviews happened, but not that they were the most notable. The latter requires a secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging other AfD participants, Concertmusic, TimothyBlue, Onel5969, JGHowes, Hobit, czar, Missvain and Ritchie333, who might want to participate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Forgot to ping Roller26, Mccapra and Missvain, from the first AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd appreciate thoughts from anyone opposing this merge on how the existing article could be made compliant with the requirement that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" (WP:PSTS). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See reply below. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very selective merge. I agree with Sdkb that simply moving all the material from the existing article would swamp the university article. But most of the material that remains after the very valid trimming done by Cordless Larry is trivial and minutia, such as the organization, presence, vidoes, and events sections. The remaining can be boiled down to a several sentences which could easily be added to the existing single line in the target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article, as pruned of cruft, still has enough meat on the bones (including photos) to warrant a standalone article. As to "how the existing article could be made compliant with the requirement that 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...' ", that was already argued at the AfD. Why rehash it again? I understand you disagree that the Hindu and New Indian Express cites suffice as SIGCOV, but that is where we differ.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't about whether the two independent sources demonstrate notability, but the fact that they don't say much about the subject, leaving the article to be based on primary sources. This was discussed as a problem, but the outcome of the AfD hasn't resolved it - the article is still based largely on primary sources. If we're now saying that articles can be based almost entirely on what a subject has written about itself, then we might as well just hand Wikipedia over to conflict-of-interest editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. So much ink has been spilled when whoever sets down to actually write the content will not have more than a paragraph to write from the two sources under this interminable discussion. To keep the article unmerged is to support a coat rack for reams of primary source detail unfit for an encyclopedia. czar 16:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks for the ping. I must admit that I misread/misunderstood the New Indian Express source on the first AfD and did not understand it was a multi page article that required the reader to click at the bottom to find the relevant material. If I had been clear about this I think I would have been looking for an ATD rather than !voting to delete. I completely agree with Czar’s point about coatracking in the current article. What can be supported in RIS is two sections, History and Organisation. The rest is self-sourced promotional padding that doesn’t belong here. I’m not die-in-the ditch opposed to a stand alone article consisting of those sections alone but given the enthusiasm for padding things out I’d prefer to see the material merged for the time being. If the publication continues to achieve national attention there will be a stronger case for a stand alone article in the future. Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Based on what Czar and Mccapra have said about coatracking and taking into account PSTS, I must agree that when all of the self-pub content is removed, this is all we are left with for the proposed merge: —  JGHowes  ^talk 17:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Currently this is the only Indian college/university campus newspaper having its stand-alone article. However the article passes GNG by bare-bones and as mentioned above by JGHowes on the basis of reliable independent sources, it will be a permanent stub. Also as all the 3 independent sources are from 2012 it doesn't seem to be getting more recent coverage. If and when more independent sources become available the article can be created on a stand-alone basis. Roller26 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Sources are fine, article is moderate. That's not really a reason to merge. There is nothing wrong with the article being a stub, but frankly, we can easily get a 300-500 word, neutral and good article out of the sources we have. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Exactly. Only Hobit and ((u|Sdkb)) seem to have got the point. A good article is surely possible with all the original content. Now suppose we had the list of notable interviews that Cordless Larry removed with a lot of other content. How can you expect the interview to have sources other than the interview link itself? I mean this is too severe. I've seen many pages that have a large proportion of content without references because that's fine. Times change, so does the content of an article. If this kind of editing is done, half of Wikipedia would vanish and the other half would be so dated that it would render the content irrelevant. Let the article remain a stub if you want it to be. But the merging will create a wrong perception that Monday Morning isn't independent and that it comes under the purview of the institute, which again is completely false. Parzival221B (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is another small reference to Monday Morning by JoSAA (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) a government agency established by the Ministry of Education to showcase institute profiles of IITs, NITs, and IIITs for prospective students. It clearly recognizes Monday Morning and no other club/organization in the institute because of its sheer importance: https://josaa.nic.in/seatinfo/root/InstProfile.aspx?instcd=223
• Monday Morning has a huge amount of information on its website and apps that even other media bodies use (like https://www.bhubaneswarbuzz.com/updates/industries/startup-by-odisha-based-nit-rourkela-in-top-20-of-innovate-for-digital-india-2015-contest) Parzival221B (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Cordless Larry asked above about how it would be possible to get a standalone article to comply with PSTS. PSTS establishes that we shouldn't be using primary sources for huge portions of a page or for controversial statements like the newspaper's reputation. It does not, however, require that we completely eliminate all information derived from primary sources. Our rules for what counts as a qualifier for notability vs. what counts as reliable are different, and per WP:ABOUTSELF and other policies it's okay to use primary sources to establish basic facts like the location of the newsroom or the annual budget. It'd be perfectly possible to construct a decent article that uses the secondary sources to cite the publication's reputation and fills out the more basic details with primary sources. It won't be a super long article at that point, but it'll still be significantly longer than the one short paragraph that would be due at the university page (looking at examples of university FAs, many only devote a single sentence to the newspaper of record), and demanding that all permastubs have the potential to become long FAs would be a signifant heightening of our notability standards. The nominator and some others here are clearly not pleased with the AfD result, but it's time to move on. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that I'm displeased with the result of the AfD, but that the closing statement of the AfD suggested a separate discussion about the merits of a merge. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty biased closing statement for an AfD in which we had 4 Keeps, 1 Delete, and 2 Merge suggestions. Parzival221B (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You've failed to count my nomination there, Parzival221B, but in any case, AfDs aren't numerical votes. The strength of arguments is also taken into account, so I presume that Ritchie333 placed little weight on one of the keep opinions, which basically amounted to an argument that effort had gone into the article so it shouldn't be deleted, when assessing the consensus. However, if you want to challenge the result, you'd have to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that's a fair characterization of the keep votes (says a keep !voter). It's that there were sources that met WP:N. And to the point, there is nothing wrong with using reliable, primary sources for parts of the article. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't intended as such, Hobit. It was a description of one specific keep vote, to illustrate to Parzival221B that the closer doesn't simply count up the votes but instead has to assess the weight of the arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, I saw "opinions" and missed "one of the" some how. My critical reading skills need some work it appears. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Even trimmed down, per secondary source (SOURCING) guidlines, the article should be merged per NOT INHERITED. Almost half the references are marginal at best, and inheritantly unreliable (re: YouTube, Facebook). This is a non-print student publication, not a "newspaper". Very weak on any proven notability, per the above. If needed, I would be glad to do the merge, just ping. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]