Talk:Palatinate (newspaper)

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Format

In October 2004 it changed from broadsheet to tabloid format.' - Not really very significant history, as the newspaper has changed back and forth between the two formats many times in the past. It was tabloid from 2000-2002, at least. I'd also rather question the notability of listing the current editors by name. DWaterson 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of Editors-in-Chief of Palatinate

No evidence that the topic of this list satisfies WP:LISTN notability guidelines, namely that these editors have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, even if every single name is individually verifiable. One editor has reverted my redirect, so per WP:BRD I'm moving this to a discussion. If this list of editors is of dubious notability for inclusion in even Palatinate (newspaper), as User:Aloneinthewild has suggested, deletion is another option. Note that since the majority of names on this list are thus far non-notable, and an equivalent list exists off-wiki, a simple external link to said list would obviate the existence of any list on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most former editors on the list are notable – it is simply a matter of processing through and linking them up, as is being done in roughly chronological order. I would suggest that it should be left as it is now so that the list can be completed over time and comply with the notability principle in the process. If it is decided that the list still does not satisfy guidelines following this, alternative changes, such as a merger or deletion, should certainly be discussed. --Pinnel's Court (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2015 (GMT)

You still haven't addressed WP:LISTN, which is what stand-alone lists are measured against. Do you have any sources that demonstrate that the group of editors as a group is notable (irregardless of how many are independently notable)? So far all the sources are primary sources and/or articles discussing individuals. Notability requires verifiable evidence and Notability is not inherited by being associated with notable subjects. As I've said several times, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I don't want to call this WP:LISTCRUFT, as it is at least a well defined, finite list, but I do think it is trivial for a stand-alone article (demonstrate that more than just you or the newspaper find the list noteworthy), and I doubt that solely being on this list is most member's claim to fame. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of this Page | February 21st, 2016

Hello, I have just completed most cleanup for the page, however leaving the Editors-in-chief section alone. There are a few notes about the page that I would like for you to note, including citations, etc.

1. Citations; the Details section has been flagged for Original research, with there being no citations at all in that section. With that section, I have redone the paragraphs, and added a bit information that makes sense. I did leave all of the questionable information with ^{[citation needed]} tags, so that those bits of information could be cited to a proper source. I also did this to the History section.

2. Gap #1; there is currently a lack of information for 1948 through 1999, with only small notes about the first publication being in 1948, and the publication winning an award in 1999. Please add information unless there are only minor events between those two dates/years. Also, follow #1 please for citations.

3. Gap #2; there is currently a lack of information following November 2015; however this is not really necessary to note yet because it is only a short time period (3 Months.)

4. Editors-in-chief section; its starting to get long in height, so maybe style that section differently?

Thanks for reading, you may revert my edits if my edits were unnecessary. KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has previously been discussed most of the editors are certainly not notable, except those with a reference to third party source ( eg George Aligiah). Editing a student newspaper is unfortunately not a route to notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palatinate (newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929110713/http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2005/6/7/10844.html to http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2005/6/7/10844.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Palatinate (newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PalTV's own Wikipedia page

Is PalTV notable enough to warrant its own page? I believe there was a submission that was declined last year for its own page.

Has the time come for it to have its own now? 129.234.0.169 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the citations on this page, no. It needs to have 'significant coverage'. Per the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines, being included in a list of award recipients does not qualify (it is explicitly included as 'trivial coverage' in WP:ORGDEPTH). There needs to be coverage in multiple third-party sources that "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". For student media, I would interpret 'third party' as meaning external to the university community, i.e. not including coverage in other student media associated with the university (i.e. The Bubble wouldn't count, even though it's not directly linked to PalTV). Robminchin (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob,

Brilliant points.

Would mentions in national press help PalTV's case for notability? Namely:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/many-student-beds-needed-durham-120000123.html?guccounter=1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67243446

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65772372

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2022-10-28/protest-after-students-queue-overnight-to-secure-accommodation

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/23096998.data-student-lets-site-shows-outrageous-rent-rates-durham/ 129.234.0.190 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth", per the guideline posted above. The extent of the actual discussion of the subject in the first of these is "PalTV, the student TV station at Durham University"; the others are even briefer. With a few better sources these could be additional useful evidence of notability, but I don't think they suffice on their own.

One think that might help would be to improve coverage of NaSTA - if this was demonstrated to be independently notable (with its own article), then its awards would be notable. I'm not sure that this would justify an article for PalTV on its own but it would help a little should better major sources emerge. TSP (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]