Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flagpole Magazine
- 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 no consensus. Nja247 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flagpole Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
According to its website, this is free magazine in "Athens[, GA, available] at over 325 locations: shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, street corners and the University of Georgia campus." It appears to be one of those free quasi-magazine publications you see discarded in trash cans outside tourist bureaus, banks, and dentists' offices. I see no claim to notability. The article asserts none, and a google search is muddied with advertising and self-referential material. As to policy, WP:NME is not yet canonical, and even if it was it's dubious whether Flagpole is notable by those criteria. That leaves the general guideline and possibly WP:ORG, and it's far from clear to me that this newsletter has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. good wikiquette requires notification of the article's creator and significant contributors. I haven't done so, because there is no one to notify. The article was created in 2005 by an IP account, and no one has made more than trivial edits since user:Tobogganoggin in 2006. Even if Tobogganoggin was likely to still care, his contribution history shows no activity since December 1 of last year, so notification would fall on deaf ears.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I typically skew deletionist, but 5 seconds on Google is plenty to come up with mention in independent, reliable sources. You might want to use Google News if you find yourself getting bogged down in "advertising and self-referential material". Small sampling:
- Flagpole is a "defender of Athens lifestyle" - a dedicated piece on the magazine from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [1]
- The New York Times identifies Flagpole as a "trusty guide" to goings-on in Athens: [2]
- The founding of Flagpole (in 1987) is identified as an important event in the history of the Athens music scene: [3]
- Flagpole holds an annual music awards ceremony recognizing the best in local music: article from The Albany Herald
- Local music awards ceremony mentioned in the Athens Banner-Herald: [4]
- Flagpole celebrates 20 years of publication, noted in a University of Georgia student paper: [5]
- Flagpole publishes a useful guide to AthFest, a major local music festival - article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution ([6])
- The magazine is a member of the Athens Press Club ([7])
- All of this points to a notable local free paper, with occasional notice on a national level (e.g. the New York Times). MastCell Talk 07:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With one exception, those sources are all trivial. They mention the publication in passing or tangentially, and that won't suffice for notability. Being "mention[ed] in independent, reliable sources" is not the criterion: "Significant coverage" (meaning multiple "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") is. The article hasn't shown that, and neither do the sources you're pointing to.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that your interpretation of triviality is correct (it conflicts with that given in WP:NME), and setting aside the dedicated coverage from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Additionally, while WP:NME is not policy, it appears to be reasonably established as a guide in this area. Flagpole would appear to qualify ("...considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area") as an authoritative guide to local goings-on in Athens, per the sources I've listed above (particularly the direct identification as such by the New York Times). MastCell Talk 19:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple sources with shallow coverage can be aggregated into notability - but multiple sources with only trivial, incidental mentions of the subject multiply exactly as you'd expect: any number multiplied by zero comes to zero. The sources you mention come to zero. There's a few passing references, but virtually nothing in terms of coverage of the article subject. As you note, NME isn't policy, but I already pointed that out and noted that even if it was, this article doesn't appear to satisfy it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've already said my piece, and I'll wait to see if anyone else stops by to venture an opinion. MastCell Talk 02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple sources with shallow coverage can be aggregated into notability - but multiple sources with only trivial, incidental mentions of the subject multiply exactly as you'd expect: any number multiplied by zero comes to zero. The sources you mention come to zero. There's a few passing references, but virtually nothing in terms of coverage of the article subject. As you note, NME isn't policy, but I already pointed that out and noted that even if it was, this article doesn't appear to satisfy it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that your interpretation of triviality is correct (it conflicts with that given in WP:NME), and setting aside the dedicated coverage from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Additionally, while WP:NME is not policy, it appears to be reasonably established as a guide in this area. Flagpole would appear to qualify ("...considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area") as an authoritative guide to local goings-on in Athens, per the sources I've listed above (particularly the direct identification as such by the New York Times). MastCell Talk 19:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With one exception, those sources are all trivial. They mention the publication in passing or tangentially, and that won't suffice for notability. Being "mention[ed] in independent, reliable sources" is not the criterion: "Significant coverage" (meaning multiple "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") is. The article hasn't shown that, and neither do the sources you're pointing to.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Although this comes a lot closer to being notable than most local free magazines, I see most of the references above as trivial. The NYC Times one is interesting, but that alone won't get it past notability. Mentions in local media or college newspapers doesn't help much. I disagree with the premise that multiple trivial mentions can be combined to become notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By way of clarification, do you consider the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to be "local media"? MastCell Talk 05:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the AJC article, although behind a pay wall, is clearly a profile piece that covers Flagpole magazine as its primary subject. In combination with other shallow coverage, this is enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've read it, then? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the paywall summary which clearly indicates it is the main subject of the article. The fact that we cannot access it online does not negate its value as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so the answer is no: you haven't read it. So we have no idea what the article says, just an assumption based on the first paragraph. Right? All we know about what's in that story is that there's almost nothing in that story: we know from the summary that it's 499 words in total, ergo any coverage of anything therein is necessarily shallow.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, I did not read the article. 500 words isn't a mere mention. So despite the possiblity of sources to establish notability, you would rather delete the article? -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When notability is borderline at best, as here (five hundred words of "attention ... from local media ... is not an indication of notability," and may be more than trivial, but it is still shallow), yes, I would rather delete the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, I did not read the article. 500 words isn't a mere mention. So despite the possiblity of sources to establish notability, you would rather delete the article? -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so the answer is no: you haven't read it. So we have no idea what the article says, just an assumption based on the first paragraph. Right? All we know about what's in that story is that there's almost nothing in that story: we know from the summary that it's 499 words in total, ergo any coverage of anything therein is necessarily shallow.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the paywall summary which clearly indicates it is the main subject of the article. The fact that we cannot access it online does not negate its value as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've read it, then? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:41, 22 July 2009 (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.