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 Keep --Stephen 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CampusJ[edit]

CampusJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has recently had a PROD removed, so bringing to AfD. Appears to be non-notable as a defunct, short-lived college/univeristy newspaper. Assertions to notability based on Google News Searches, and a brief mention in another Jewish publication. I suggest that this is non-notable and should be deleted Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article provides specific claims of notability regarding its campus coverage and its role in uncovering journalistic integrity issues in deal between the New York Times and Columbia University, all accompanied by ample reliable and verifiable sources. The service's duration or possible defunct status are not valid reasons for deletion of an article. Alansohn (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call two references "ample". I am not trying to prove non-notability, which is impossible, but I can't see that this article will ever find sources to satisfactorially assert notability per the guidelines. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that this article should be speedily deleted. It really is so far from notable at this point; if you check the page they're totally defunct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Defunct" or "Possibly defunct" are never valid arguments for deleting an article. Notability does not expire; once notable, always notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The defunct part of the above should, on reflection, not be in the nomination. My point is that I don't see that the sources within the article assert this magazine's notability. The matter of defunct/non-defunct is, as you say, according to WP:N irrelevant. I am simply suggesting that the magazine was never notable enough for inclusion. Hopefully my point is now clearer... :-S -Fritzpoll (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article was previously the subject of an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campusj.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability proved from cited claims in article. Also per [1]. The JPSwirlface (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account created today. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my userpage if you wish to learn more. I have a lot of past experience as a vandal, but now wish to edit constructively. I chose this article at random from the afd category, and reviewed it as a constructive (and previously uninvolved) editor. If there is a consensus that everyone here is unhappy with this, I will of course retract my vote and desist until I am considered an established user. The JPSwirlface (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The closing admin (who will not be me) is authorized to evaluate your vote as however he/she sees fit. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, obviously I'll accept that. I don't want to go making any enemies at this point. The JPSwirlface (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (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.