Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulence: Ideas for Movement
- 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. Secret account 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turbulence: Ideas for Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or incubate)
I'm puzzled that an editor with three years experience and thousands of edits would consider this article acceptable. While there is some value in helping out a brand-new editor who doesn't know what is required, help find some WP:RS and maybe the article can survive.I know I am supposed to WP:AGF, but I feel like an editor wants an article on this subject, and wants others to do the hard work.Acceptable from a newbie, not from someone who has been here this long.I did look at a few pages of Google hits, but didn't find anything that would qualify it to be a notable publication. This is a very new publication, and I can understand why they would like a Wikipedia entry to get the word out, but we are supposed to add magazines after they become notable, not help them become notable. If someone finds any worthwhile links, and it looks like it could survive with work, consider the incubator. otherwise it should be deleted without prejudice, as it may be notable in the future.--SPhilbrickT 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete I presume I am the "editor with three years experience and thousands of edits", as the edit history of this article shows my edit as the first one. In fact I did not create the article, I merely tagged it for a speedy delete, and I have no idea why the original creation of the article does not show up in the edit history. I completely agree with Sphilbrick's judgement of this article: indeed, as I said, I proposed it for a speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm quite embarrassed to note that I leaped to an incorrect conclusion. I looked at the editor of the oldest edit. I haven't yet figured out why the oldest edit isn't the creation, but that doesn't excuse me, I should have noted the edit summary. Part of my rationale was based upon the beleif that we should give new editors a little more slack that experienced editors—it remains a fact that I was unable to find anything supporting Notability, but I will search a little more diligently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup Some mentions in Google scholar, but they are mainly papers written by one of the editors of the magazine; I saw nothing about the magazine itself, other than this item from Sociology Compass.
Google News produced one hit, an essay by one of the magazine's editors, in something called ZSpace. Doesn't appear to be about the magazine or drawn from the magazine.
In summary, I've found one mention of existence, and I'm not even sure that one is notable. Maybe they will be come notable, but the evidence is not there yet. My !vote remains the same.--SPhilbrickT 12:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup Some mentions in Google scholar, but they are mainly papers written by one of the editors of the magazine; I saw nothing about the magazine itself, other than this item from Sociology Compass.
- Comment I'm quite embarrassed to note that I leaped to an incorrect conclusion. I looked at the editor of the oldest edit. I haven't yet figured out why the oldest edit isn't the creation, but that doesn't excuse me, I should have noted the edit summary. Part of my rationale was based upon the beleif that we should give new editors a little more slack that experienced editors—it remains a fact that I was unable to find anything supporting Notability, but I will search a little more diligently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I presume I am the "editor with three years experience and thousands of edits", as the edit history of this article shows my edit as the first one. In fact I did not create the article, I merely tagged it for a speedy delete, and I have no idea why the original creation of the article does not show up in the edit history. I completely agree with Sphilbrick's judgement of this article: indeed, as I said, I proposed it for a speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sphilbrick's excellent rationale regarding our role in presenting subjects which are already notable and not helping to promote them into becoming notable. ThemFromSpace 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though of course, as the creator of this article, I would say this. My argument is that this subject (the magazine Turbulence) is already notable -- and I have tried to reflect this is a new edit of the page. In brief, the magazine has been either been endorsed by or contains contributions from (or both) such influential scholars as Rebecca Solnit, Walden Bello, John Holloway, Michael Hardt, Gustavo Esteva. London's Serpentine Gallery featured Turbulence as part of its Manifesto Marathon in October 2008. Within the anti-globalization movement, John Holloway and Hardt & Negri reflect quite different positions, but both cite Turbulence in their latest books (respectively Crack Capitalism (Pluto Press, forthcoming 2010) and Commonwealth (Harvard University Press, 2009)). I'd also like to point to an apparent inconsistency in Wikipedia's policy. I'm am not recommending that any of these entries be deleted, but I have found several magazines or journals that demonstrate less notability than Turbulence does -- examples include Left Turn, Historical Materialism, Mute Magazine and Red Pepper -- though I see that, since I mentioned these in my post to Anthony Appleyard, these are now under threat of deletion. DavidUnruhe (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of DavidUnruhe's remarks constitute notability by Wikipedia's standard. (1) Being "endorsed by" is ambiguous: it is commonly used to mean simply that a person has helped to advertise a product. Even if it does not mean that, it probably does not mean they have given substatntial independent coverage of it. (2) Who has contributed to the magazine is clearly not independent of it. (3) The fact that a couple of people cite the magazine does not constitute substantial coverage. (4) The fact that there are articles (not yet deleted) about other magazines which DavidUnruhe regards as demonstrating even less notability than Turbulence: Ideas for Movement is neither a reason for keeping Turbulence: Ideas for Movement nor an indication of "inconsistency in Wikipedia's policy". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a minor point, but I do not wish to judge other publications. I do regard the other magazines/journals I mentioned as "even less notable" than Turbulence; my point is that these magazines do not demonstrate greater notability than Turbulence in their Wikipedia pages.DavidUnruhe (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. I have restored all deleted edits. I assume partial restoration was just a slip-up by Anthony Appleyard. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 November 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.