Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FutureQuake

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 of the debate was No consensus, after discounting invalid voters. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FutureQuake

Non-notable fanzine. They do a good job plugging it but the print run can't be greater than a few hundred. ScottNestle 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Award winning fanzine, which has featured contributions from established professional creators. Noisybast 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

*Keep. I have contributed to this article as the zine is well known on the British scene - SFX "Top Fanzine" award etc, plus contributors, all argue for notability. Vizjim 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Changing vote (see below) Vizjim 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I hadn't heard of this fanzine, but it seems notable to me. Moe Aboulkheir 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Its biggest mention is "Fanzine of the Month" in a magazine about sci-fi/comic "media topics." I don't think so. Recury 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep God almighty - how many people can Scott hold a grudge against? GET SOME PSYCHIATRIC HELP, ALREADY! Where do I begin with FutureQuake? The contributions from artists who went on to professional work, the professional artists who contributed, the writers who went on to professional work (whose Wiki pages are also nominated for deletion by the same person), the pro writers who contributed (and in Alan Grant's case, also edited), the prominant mentions in international publications like SFX and Comics International, 2000ad, The Judge Dredd Megazine and Fortean Times..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs).

• Much as I hate to say this to someone of roughly the same opinion as myself about the notability of this item, do please observe WP:CIVIL. We can't know with 100% certainty that this is the same Scott Nestel, and his stated reasons for nominating the article for deletion as given here are reasonable though (as you demonstrate eloquently) he's probably not appreciated the impact of the title.

• keep Part of the definition of British small press comics is that they don't have major distribution and circulation. However, they punch above their circulation weight as theya re a bredding ground for the next generation of comic greats (see for example Near Myths which worked in a similar way for talent like Grant Morrison). Quite a few people appearing in the pages have gone on to get work in 2000 AD as well as various members of 2000 AD doing work on the magazine. It is this which makes them notable. (Emperor 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete I don't see the notability. Are all British fanzines inherently notable? Eluchil404 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: No they aren't. This shouldn't be translated to mean none of them are though (it has to be argued on a case-by-case basis) - ScottNestle (aka Artw) has stated that they consider none of the British small press comics publications as being notable but this is rather a broad judgement. Granted anyone can scribble out some cartoons and run off some photocopies which hardly anyone sees and they can call that a small press comic. That shouldn't reflect badly on things like FutureQuake which has become a publishing house producing a range of anthologies (to professional standards) with contributors drawn from the mainstream and small press worlds. It has got awards and great reviews as well as being a place that future talent is nurtured. Which combines to suggest that while not all small press publications are notable this one is. (Emperor 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

• Keep. Why someone should target this for deletion and not other small-press book entries (The End Is Nigh, Solar Wind, etc.) is beyond me. All these books give a home to up and coming talent, and do it to a high level of quality. They have been stepping stones for people to go on to professional work in the industry and are noteable for this alone. Please keep.
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. The answers to the anon's question above is that the nominator is a sockpuppet (see their talk page for more details), and his nominations were targeted at one group, presumably as cover to get his own entry deleted. Vizjim 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pure speculation on your part there. I may have hidden my identity when making those nominations, but I assure you they all have very real notability problems when it becomes to WP. Artw 14:41, 28 June 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.