Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GW Today

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 redirect to George Washington University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GW Today

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

George Washington University's internal newsletter. Completely non-notable publication. Fails WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted as it is a plausible redirect to George Washington University. James500 (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you !vote redirect?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. James500 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This from the GWU page: "There are three major news sources on campus: the twice-weekly newspaper The GW Hatchet, The GW Patriot, which publishes articles online daily and in a monthly newsmagazine, and the online-only radio station, WRGW." No mention of GW Today, no references to the website (gwtoday.gw.edu) in the references. However, the web page itself is pretty detailed.Listmeister (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it would seem that GW Today isn't even notable within the context of GWU's on-campus news sources, much less within the context of the world.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2013 (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.