Inter-Residence Hall Association (University of Florida): And yes the student newspaper of the university is a primary source.   Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 10:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and Florida .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article by all means has sufficient sources that are not from the student newspaper, including newspapers and outlets from across Florida and the United States.  The Lakeland Ledger , Boca Rotan News, WUFT-FM , Gainesville Sun , Sarasota Tribune, Daily Orange , and Baltimore Afro-American all are cited.  Most of which, with articles that discuss the organization in a decent amount of depth, beyond the single-sentence mentions that WP:ORGCRIT seeks to avoid.  Additionally, the Independent Florida Alligator is no longer associated with the University of Florida anyways.  While it can be argued that a student newspaper is a primary source, the Alligator has been independent and unassociated with the University of Florida since  1973, and while considered a largely "student-run" paper, is an independent local newspaper.  With all sources coming after that date, clearly and unarguably being secondary sources.  I would, personally additionally argue, considering that student papers, including the Alligator, are generally editorially independent from their respective colleges, it should be considered a secondary source prior to this date as well.  That's even the reason the Alligator became independent, they were exercising their editorial privileges and the university attempted to intervene.  Subsequently, resulting in a tension between the university and paper, and its withdraw from being an official student paper of the college anyways.  I would also ask someone that has more knowledge in source assessment: do other agencies of the same larger institution typically count as primary sources or secondary sources anyways?  The notion that comes to mind is the example of: what if an editor cites the U.S. Forest Service in an article about NASA, both are independent of each other, but are both organizations within the larger institution of the federal government.  Is this citation considered primary or secondary?  At that point, are they even considered to be related organizations to each other?  This would be similar to the given circumstance: the Inter-Residence Hall Association is only directly cited a handful of times, though other agencies of the university (arguably including Florida Alligator articles prior to 1973) are cited additional times.  Again, I am unsure about this last notion and could use someone more knowledgeable outside myself or the nominator for assistance on that question.  Regardless of this, the article certainly has enough external sources to prove notability.  If the suggestion is that additional secondary citations are required for verification, I could almost understand, especially if we are not counting the Florida Alligator prior to 1973.  However, given the previously mentioned in-depth coverage from newspapers across the state and country where the organization is organization is based, I would argue that the Inter-Residence Hall Association quite clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG by having multiple reliable secondary sources that are unarguably independent of the subject.  - Navarre0107 ( talk ) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More in-depth sources from news outlets and papers across the state have also been added since the creation of this AfD. - Navarre0107 ( talk ) 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If WP:GNG can't be assessed, a redirect to University of Florida will always be better than a deletion regardless of the material.  – The Grid ( talk ) 19:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 12:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 19 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus