Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oxford Blue (newspaper)
to University of Oxford: I'm familiar with the newspaper (as an Oxonian) and this article is just PR spin. ''The Oxford Blue'' wants to portray itself as a competitor to ''Cherwell (newspaper)|Cherwell'' and ''The Oxford Student'' (and its reputation among students is that its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism), but it's just not got the history, credibility or acceptance. The article boasts that it's the "first digital-only student newspaper in Oxford", when this is actually just a reframing of a big reason why it's not as respectable (no print copy distributed to colleges like the others, and hell even the ''The Oxymoron''). {{pb}} The article fails |GNG and the essay |NMEDIA (which I'll take as at least reflecting rough common practice) and it'd be better |TNT'd even if it later becomes notable. The creator violated : {{tq|you should put new articles through the Wikipedia:Articles for Creation|Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly}}. Redirecting to University of Oxford is just barely appropriate, I think, due to the brief mention there and as this is commonly done for student newspapers. {{pb}} To go through the case for notability thoroughly, the BBC doesn't seem to cite ''The Oxford Blue'' as the article claims (perhaps it used to appear under the local news links section), but ''The Guardian'' does https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/27/oxford-lecturer-admits-producing-indecent-photographs here and https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/16/oxford-professor-arrested-ancient-papyrus-bible-theft-dirk-obbink here. https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/oxford-independent-newspaper-wins-society-sponsored-student-publication-award/ This Society of Editors award is genuine. The Geddes Prize above is internal to Oxford. The ARCA blog is nonsense. Only the award(s) are in-depth, and not sufficient for NMEDIA#1, while NMEDIA#4 is not passed by just a handful of recent citations and claims of NMEDIA#2,3,5 are thoroughly implausible given the recency of the publication. For GNG, again it's a fail, not enough coverage of the publication's history, founding and practices. Definitely |too soon and the creator is clearly an EiC from their username and disclosed COI so not here for the right reasons
— User:Bilorv, 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NMEDIA||WP:TNT||WP:COIEDIT||WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia:Notability)