Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club (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The result was keep/withdrawn —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 02:47Z

[edit] Club (magazine)

Club (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article fails to assert the importance of its subject; {{prod}} was removed without changing the article at all. Article as it is now written meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7. Nothing in the article qualifies it for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nicer1 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the nomination and have noted my concerns about the article's notability by using the {{notability}} template and elaborating on my concerns on the article's Talk page.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if this so obviously meets the criteria for speedy deletion as you claim, why did you bring it to AfD? Seems like a pretty major adult magazine, a US version of a well-known British magazine (which you've also nominated). Hmm, I notice you've nominated three "adult" magazines for deletion recently... --Canley 23:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I brought it to AfD because the last {{db}} tag I put on an article was summarily removed without making any changes to the article. Apparently you think I have a problem with adult magazines; you've made a comment on my talk page reminding me that Wikipedia isn't censored. I will respond to that there; however, I think it bears mentioning that nominating a bad article about an adult magazine isn't censorship, it's nominating a bad article. Don't go assigning presumptive motives to others' actions.Nicer1 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment OK, thanks for explaining that, and my apologies for presuming any ulterior motive. However, you have to realise that deletion, in particular speedy deletion, is not the solution to your desire for better articles, and should only be used when an article is an unsalvagable mess or blatantly unencylopedic, which these articles are not. You raise some good points below, please add them to the articles' talk pages and let some other editors improve them based on your suggestions rather than trying so hard to have them deleted. --Canley 09:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major pornogrpahic publication that meets WP:N. Needs some more sources but that, alone, isn't justfication for deletion. Tag it and give it some time. Also, in an unrelated field, while wikpeia isn't censored and keeping WP:PORN in mind, some effort to find a less graphic image would be good. NeoFreak 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how what's in the article meets WP:N. The publication may indeed be notable; however, which of the following points in the article describes the publication as being notable?

• It's a monthly periodical ?
• It's a spin-off from another publication ?
• It has
  • sexually-oriented articles ?
  • video reviews ?
  • pictorials with a variety of content (hardcore, etc.) ?
• The content of its pictorials used to be different ?
• It had contract models ?

Nicer1 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment well one of the criteria for notability for almost anything is it's coverage in a monthly non-trivial publication. By extention you have to consider the publication itself to be notable. Kind of a no brainer. According to this it is one of the top ten adult magazines in the UK and it's publisher posted a 19 milllion pound profit in 1999. NeoFreak 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article is the information that the magazine is covered in a non-trivial publication? Where in the articleis the information about profit and circulation? I'm not arguing that the publication isn't notable; I'm arguing that nothing in the article indicates that it is.75.4.164.13 11:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's been added. Anything else? NeoFreak 11:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: a clearly notable mass-market newsstand publication from a major publisher of such magazines. It might be useful to add a figure for audited circulation to this article, to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - clearly notable. When something is self-evidently notable, a clean-up tag may be appropriate, and RFD just looks suspicious when read with the nominator's edit history... See Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford ;-) --SandyDancer 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, not a viable deletion candidate. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup by citing sources from mainstream coverage where available, and from industrywide publications such as AVN. Notable in its field for decades, read by hundreds of thousands, needs proper claim of notability. Barno 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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.