Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewFoundSpecFic

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewFoundSpecFic

edit
NewFoundSpecFic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTE, does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There seems to be enough coverage of the article in third party sources to at least maintain a stub. Both the Scope and The Evening Telegram are reliability sources to prove the magazine's notability in it's province. There is lots of evidence to support them, and their website provides lots of information to showcase their notability. It is also listed and mentioned in numerous databases on the Internet, such as libraries and writers markets. There seems to be a lot of other science fiction magazines that have less notable sources yet still are online, and seems this article has only been nominated for deletion after a bit of vandalism earlier this week. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Scope fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a independent print newspaper that serves an equal purpose as the Evening Telegram. Therefore does not fail WP:RS--Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source to back up this claim? Does it have independent editorial review? Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that it states this on the about section of their website? They have worked with numerous reputable businesses and have had worked with different music venues, challenges and charities. What more would you need to claim this? Meanwhile, what is an independent editorial review? --Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that on their About page. Have independent reliable secondary sources written about it? Cirt (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says they are a newspaper that has over 500 distribution points in cities in Newfoundland. As well, a google search reveals numerous pages about them including them acting as a regional hub for the RPM challenge. I don't see how you can get the idea that they are not an important print newspaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That did not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of clarity: an independent editorial review is an OP/ED piece in which the journalist / collumnist gives a review of the publication. What appears to be being said here is that this is part of the desired requirements for notability. It's not enough to simply have its existance mentioned, it needs to have been actually extensively looked at. Sadly, a search online finds a few blog / facebook references to review, but no reliable secondary sources on them as of yet. I believe this in what Cirt is looking for. Feel free to correct me, Cirt. Yourbasis101 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article for the above / below criteria. Not notable by wikipedia standards, as least not as of yet. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails notability. Whether you call it a magazine or a book (librarians would simply refer to it as a "periodical publication"), it doesn't make the significant coverage test. If Scope had reviewed it, rather than simply announcing its release, that might be a different matter (and yes, publications in the field such as Locus do review magazines), even though Scope is a pretty weak reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worldcat shows only 3 libraries: Harvard, and the Universities of Newfoundland and Manitoba. The Canada Union Catalog adds their National library. the conclusion is that it is not notable even in the region where it is published. It is also not listed in Ulrichs, which is a minimum criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sorry, everyone, I see you are all saying delete, and I am aware some of you have significant experience, and way more than me. I just think it's a keeper. Sure it's relatively new and not a lot of libraries stock it, but give it a chance. I see your notability point, but there's also the ignore all rules rule. What we have here is a good faith effort to get people to write and read certain fiction. That effort may not be terribly notable right now, but it is new and growing. A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--no, not in promoting a commercial magazine, but in the laudable goal of getting people to write and read fiction. Wikipedia itself relies on people having writing and reading skills. So I would like to see Wikipedia rules not be so strictly applied that they delete the page of an up and coming literary magazine. Yes, if the magazine goes nowhere in a few years, then it's not notable. But I say give it a chance now. Give writing and reading fiction a chance too. Mushy? Yes, but I'd like to keep the page for now. "We are mainly looking for undeveloped and aspiring writers who need a stepping stone in the writing world." Let's not delete this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fail to get the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable subjects. Deciding to keep articles because we like them is not an argument, it is an abdication. Wikipedia is not here to help worthy causes or promote anything. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--" is essentially the definition of a promotional article for something that is not yet notable. The rule you;re suggesting we ignore is the fundamental distinction of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know and understand completely what both of you are saying. But doesn't the thing's distribution throughout its home province prove notability? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Socks seeking deletion

Are socks seeking deletion? Let me spell out what I'm observing, and I'm asking others with more wiki knowledge to address whether there is a problem, then what to do about it.

I see several editors have striking similarities. They started editing at substantially similar times, they principally edit NewFoundSpecFic, they seek deletion, and they talk like they are well beyond being Wiki newbies. Please consider if Whomseemsxxtxx, Yourbasis101, and Takenabbyrocksdailyabove are socks.

Further evidence is provided here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Yourbasis101. Further, Takenabbyrocksdailyabove has already been blocked permanently after a single edit!

If indeed the socks are socks, do the sock comments get removed or struckout or something?

Thank you for your consideration. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you why I am trying to remove it. Our coverage of notable publications is compromised if we include ones quite so non-notable as this. Regulars here know I sometimes tend to want to keep borderline articles in this topic area, but this is not borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that it needs some work, but since it was being developed when the socks started causing problems I think it should be revisited at a later time. These requirements are more confusing than you might think, nor as cut and dry. I personally would like the opportunity to learn how to improve the article properly before having to fight regulations I haven't even had a chance to find. I wasn't even sure how to vote in this until other people did. It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it. Gwen (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale does not say why it should be kept. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, please, you can see "Gwen" is a newbie. Please, we can see you are dead set against this article, but please explain to the newbie a little more, given what she (?) said. Provide her with some guidance, like you did with me. Perhaps even tell her about her sandbox where she can work, if this article is deleted, to build the article, then bring it back in the future. Tell her to contact you on your Talk page if she needs help. I am certain you will support her efforts at the point where her work indicates pretty good adherence with wiki policy. These are just general suggestions; I'm not telling you what to do. We were all newbies once and we all got guidance from others. I'll help her too if she asks. Frankly, the other editors here are more experience than me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, "It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it." Please go and find evidence that it is "fairly well known in the province." Just paste the links on the Talk page, or here, and ask the other editors to help, and I'm sure they will, or I will.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing information backed up by reliable sources. It is not for giving exposure to something new that is not otherwise notable in terms of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's simply a matter of waiting for media to discuss it, and the page may be notable in the future. I'm not saying it is not now, I'm just talking generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As expected, I vote to keep the article. It is listed in the Writers Alliance of NL's newsletter constantly and linked on their website, mentioned in many market listings online, and appears to have another coverage to at least be left online - compared to the other magazine articles, it has a lot more notability than some. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails to give a rationale why this should be kept per WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a lot more notability than some"? Sounds like you're trying to make the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is not historically a winner. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that guidance says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 2 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NewFoundSpecFic&oldid=1069210215"