Category talk:Student newspapers published in Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change cat name?[edit]

It seems unlikely to me that any high school newspapers will meet our notability guidelines; rather, if they are mentioned, I suspect it will be on the article about the school itself. Therefore, I'd suggest renaming this category to Category:College newspapers in Oregon or similar. -Pete (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under current notability guidelines you are probably correct. I have a feeling though in a few years the community may be more willing to accept local newspapers more to show notability, but that's just a hunch. Plus there could be a paper or two that might pass currently (see here for ones from elsewhere). However, more importantly I think, "Student newspapers published in the United States" is the parent cat, so the current name matches. So, even if we were to decide one way, we might end up with a CFD to change it back to follow the national norm. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True -- but that one is a sub-cat of Category:University and college media in the United States. Also, Category:College newspapers exists. So it seems like there's never been a decisive answer on this one.
It's not inconceivable to me that some HS newspapers would be notable, but I rather doubt that there would be enough in any given state (especially a state of our size) to influence our category system. Maybe I should open a CFD first, rather than my usual dragonlike boldness? -Pete (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With your last point, in some respects that points towards keeping a joint cat as there are only what maybe 50 colleges in the state with newspapers (maybe more), so we're never going to approach a large number (at least anytime soon as we could grow like California over the next 50 years and add another 50 colleges) for either. But I don't have a strong preference either way. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]