- 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 delete - despite comments that the subject should be treated differently because of its 'philosophy,' it does not meet the notability standard. - KrakatoaKatie 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eZine launched this month. On the talk page the author asks us to consider what they have written. Let us do so here. Personally, I say delete and wait until some enthusiastic readers of the eZine write it up. -- RHaworth 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Non notable, and I'd argue that it's impossible for it to be notable after exactly 1 issue except under highly unusual circumstances. Maybe if and when it attracts media attention, or a significant audience, or is endorsed by some company — or anything else which would make it notable. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment self-promotion is still advertising, even if the person writing it doesn't think it is; there is a conflict of interest here that I think should be eliminated, even though I am all in favour of any zine or webcomic with a fanbase that extends outside the people the authors know personally having a wikipedia entry. --Thespian 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe there is a COI. In fact, this article was tagged with a notabliliy problem instead of a COI problem in the first place because the editor believed that COI was not a problem:History Page. I would like to steer this conversation back to the original questions I attempted to present on the talk page; does the unique philosophy that activeAttack presents in itself give enough justification to consider the activeAttack article notable? Even further than that, activeAttack's stance on freedom of information resprests a lot of what Wikipedia stands for, are the rules really meant to delete such articles? How can you claim that the activeAttack article does not enrich Wikipedia as a whole? ~fourteenlines
- Delete Not notable at this time. As far as COI, it's refreshing to see someone admit upfront that they own said product - but it's still not notable. Regarding the previous opinion given: wouldn't the notability requirement precede any consideration of the value of the content? Maralia 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In response to the previous comment, I don't think a notability requirement precedes the value of the content. Shouldn't valuable content be the most important thing in an Encyclopedia? I guess the way I see it, it does not make sense to knowingly exclude content that adds value to the Encyclopedia. ~~fourteenlines
- Comment — the argument is that including everything, without care, devalues the encylopaedia rather than add to it: hence the notability requirement. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the argument that I stated above was that valuable content, not all content, should be included in the encyclopedia. I don't think anyone in this discussion has suggested that everything be included without care. For my own education though, which statement did you get that idea from? ~fourteenlines
- 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.