Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeartattaCk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. The argument raised on the paucity of verifiable sources for notability of the zine holds and has not been refuted -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HeartattaCk
Self-published punk zine. This article was recreated as response to a contested speedy deletion and now asserts notability. Procedural listing, I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- In current form, delete. A number of these claims are dubious and sound unverifiable (particularly the claim about RATM). I've got this watchlisted, however, and should the unverified and dubious-sounding claims be verified, I'll amend my comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy, super punk rock keep - First, thanks to trials for making this AfD, which is preferable to the speedy delete another editor inflicted upon it. I have been encouraged not to make any aspersion about the editors who tried to knock this down, so I will say this... we have an article on Maximumrocknroll and on Punk Planet, and this zine is in that category. I'm not entirely sure what verification is needed. HaC has just always been around, just like Ebullition Records, it's an establishment within the DIY scene. Do you need distribution numbers? Letters from all the record stores that have sold it? Personal notes from the notable bands that pay attention to it? I am open to including or finding whatever you need, but this article was targeted in bad faith because the zine itself is being used as a source in another article up for AfD. This is an attempt to discredit HaC as a credible and notable zine, and therefore jeaopardize any bands with listings on Wikipedia that are made notable in part by their inclusion in this zine. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the zine itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep by equivalent is never a strong argument. Just because the Dead Kennedys have an article it doesn't mean any punk band that strives to be the next Kennedys should get one. Especially with self-published zines what matters is if they themselves have been the subject of media or literary attention. So if any of the references in Punk scene#Bibliography mentions HeartattaCk that's a good keep argument. "But Maximum RocknRoll got an entry" isn't. ~ trialsanderrors 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, MRR only has its site and archives as sources, too. Do we AfD that article, as well? PT (s-s-s-s) 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Go right ahead, if it's not properly sourced. Although in the case of MRR I'm pretty certain an AfD will lead to better sourcing. Here I'm not so sure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note - the fact about Kent McClard and Rage Against the Machine is mentioned even in Wikipedia's article about that band. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Their name was derived from a phrase Ebullition Records founder Kent McLard coined in some writings he did for his zine No Answers (issue #9)." (unsourced) Relevance to HeartattaCk? ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just one small sign of the notability of the individual who created HaC. Also, while I'm not sure how I can cite this here, you can examine any one of a number of Maximumrocknroll issues, for whom Kent McClard was a columnist. Also, a Google search easily reveals his influence on the scene. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't find 900 hits that impressive, but if all of your arguments are about KMcC's notability you should write an article on him and list the various zines he started, with redirects to his articles. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is, Kent STARTED the zine, but it's a collective of people who ran it and made it known. The zine is notable on its own, Kent is notable for other reasons besides the magazine, so it's two different articles (maybe I'll write one about him after this one passes AfD). :) PT (s-s-s-s) 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't find 900 hits that impressive, but if all of your arguments are about KMcC's notability you should write an article on him and list the various zines he started, with redirects to his articles. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just one small sign of the notability of the individual who created HaC. Also, while I'm not sure how I can cite this here, you can examine any one of a number of Maximumrocknroll issues, for whom Kent McClard was a columnist. Also, a Google search easily reveals his influence on the scene. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Their name was derived from a phrase Ebullition Records founder Kent McLard coined in some writings he did for his zine No Answers (issue #9)." (unsourced) Relevance to HeartattaCk? ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, MRR only has its site and archives as sources, too. Do we AfD that article, as well? PT (s-s-s-s) 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Suggestion: how about providing a (verifiable, e.g. by issue number) list of notable bands HaC has interviewed? That would go a long way towards demonstrating their importance in the scene. bikeable (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Down that road lies madness. Who defines a notable band? Does every zine that bothers X number of bands that later become successful need an article, even if nothing else verifiable can be said about them? Let's stick instead to the applicable-to-every-topic standard of "Has the subject recieved nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't its publication, national distribution, and citation as a notable critical sources by several bands and zines who have been reviewed in it's pages, non-trivial enough? Do we verify that New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. exists using outside sources? It may not be a household name, but it is a noted presence in the genre. I don't know how to prove that using Google hits. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's publication and distribution isn't, no. I could Xerox something and buy a bunch of stamps, boom, it's nationally published and distributed. We need coverage in other sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, MiB, that something you self-publish and mail to a few friends is not notable; however, if you did it 50 times with significant distribution, and if it had an impact on the subculture, it would be. On the other hand, the relationship between the subculture and the mass media is such that I wouldn't expect the New York Times to cover it; how often does the mainstream media write about NME or Maximum_RocknRoll? We've got to find a way that a significant contributor to the culture is considered important, even despite the biases of the mainstream culture. I agree that we're heading towards madness, for sure, but I think a weight-of-evidence approach here is appropriate. I'd like to see refs for band interviews and circulation. bikeable (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- How do you tell the difference between impact on the subculture and no impact on the subculture? By referring to reliable sources. Like we do with everything. It doesn't have to be the NYT, but right now there's nothing. I can't argue about the validity of such-and-such source with no such-and-such source in front of me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying my best here. It's not like there's a lot of mainstream press about HeartattaCk. HaC was the press, it was the source. That's why I make the comparison to asking someone to verify that Time Magazine or New York Times exists and are credible. They are because they just... ARE. This AfD is a bad case of WP:OSTRICH, in my opinion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a reasonably aware and literate person, from the larger culture into which this publication fits. This article should be able to explain the importance of this subject to me, in such a way that I could verify these claims if I needed to rely on them. If you can't do that, no amount of pointing to that essay will help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying my best here. It's not like there's a lot of mainstream press about HeartattaCk. HaC was the press, it was the source. That's why I make the comparison to asking someone to verify that Time Magazine or New York Times exists and are credible. They are because they just... ARE. This AfD is a bad case of WP:OSTRICH, in my opinion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- How do you tell the difference between impact on the subculture and no impact on the subculture? By referring to reliable sources. Like we do with everything. It doesn't have to be the NYT, but right now there's nothing. I can't argue about the validity of such-and-such source with no such-and-such source in front of me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, MiB, that something you self-publish and mail to a few friends is not notable; however, if you did it 50 times with significant distribution, and if it had an impact on the subculture, it would be. On the other hand, the relationship between the subculture and the mass media is such that I wouldn't expect the New York Times to cover it; how often does the mainstream media write about NME or Maximum_RocknRoll? We've got to find a way that a significant contributor to the culture is considered important, even despite the biases of the mainstream culture. I agree that we're heading towards madness, for sure, but I think a weight-of-evidence approach here is appropriate. I'd like to see refs for band interviews and circulation. bikeable (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's publication and distribution isn't, no. I could Xerox something and buy a bunch of stamps, boom, it's nationally published and distributed. We need coverage in other sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't its publication, national distribution, and citation as a notable critical sources by several bands and zines who have been reviewed in it's pages, non-trivial enough? Do we verify that New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. exists using outside sources? It may not be a household name, but it is a noted presence in the genre. I don't know how to prove that using Google hits. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Down that road lies madness. Who defines a notable band? Does every zine that bothers X number of bands that later become successful need an article, even if nothing else verifiable can be said about them? Let's stick instead to the applicable-to-every-topic standard of "Has the subject recieved nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per User:A Man In Black and the issues raised in the lengthy thread above. Eusebeus 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable sources are established. PT: for what it's worth, I tried a few California newspapers searches using this page and quickly found: this (rather inconclusive). However, you might try continuing in that tack.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "Self-published punk zine" is a tautology. It's a zine, it's reasonably notable, no reason to delete it. Sources would be nice, but if we deleted every unsourced article we'd have a pretty piss-poor encyclopedia as it stands. --Tothebarricades 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- According to whom is it reasonably notable, and why? We don't delete every unsourced article, but unsourcable articles are and should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's certainly notable. It has been a staple of its particular music scene for years now and is read in Europe and Canada as well. It's about DIY culture, it refuses to review things with a barcode, it's irrelevant to people outside the subculture. Does that make it worth deleting? Besides, it's not just written by some shlub, it has the same quality of writing/size/printing as MRR. It just addresses a smaller subculture. Dan Carkner 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Please provide sources to assert that it is a staple and that it's read in Europe and Canada. These broad assertions on the AFD page are all well and good, but the sources in the article boil down to "HeartattaCk is a zine" and not much more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not about the magazine's worth but about whether it can meet the criteria for an encyclopedia which is a tertiary source that synthesizes primary and secondary sources. Ideally, every statement in an article is based on some other source we can point to which substantiates the material. Unfortunately, so far, and after looking, we can't point to any sources to verify the statements in this article.--Fuhghettaboutit
-
- Well, I don't know where you expect to find these kind of things when we're talking about a subcultre that keeps itself deliberatly marginal. Sorry, I would find it disappointing if articles about something like this were deleted for "technical" reasons while there are 10,000 articles about pointless aspects of TV shows, videos games, websites,etc. I vote for keep, is everyone voting to delete at least familiar with the magazine?Dan Carkner 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't deny that there are some real challenges for someone who wants to make a good article here. I've added some sources and some notes to the talk page. Much of the article is based on claims by the publisher--which is not unusual for a small periodical, but secondary sources would be better. Unfortunately the marginal nature of the publication results in secondary sources being mainly blogs and websites that don't normally meet WP:RS. If, however, these sources are accurate (and they don't seem to be controversial) then this thing may have had a circulation of ~10,000 and represents a large enough community that this should be covered in the 'pedia. -MrFizyx 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the claims to notability made in this article just don't cut it. I'm open to being convinced, Sean Scallen photos move me, the zine may be notable. What is really lacking is other media commenting upon the influence of this zine. Back in the day (mid 80s for me) we knew that the zine Urgl-Orp was having an impact because FactSheet5 said it was the best of it's genre (political punk zine). What does FF5 say about HeartattaCk? That would carry some weight. An earlier editor commented that a list of bands interviewed may demonstrate notability, I don't believe that. (For the second issue of my totally NN zine, I interviewed Dick Lucas, I'll be stunned if anyone can figure out it's name, it was "distributed" as far as Australia, the UK, etc). (will watch for further evidence) Pete.Hurd 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Pete.Hurd. I'm quoting Our Band Could Be Your Life: "Some of [the zines] grew quite large and influential — including Flipside, Maximumrocknroll and Forced Exposure — but there were literally hundreds of smaller zines that collectively framed the indie aesthetic." From the discussion here it's becoming clear that HeartattaCk was one of the hundreds. I'm happy to be contradicted though and recommend keep voters go here and search the books for mentions of HeartattaCk as a major influence on the punk scene. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be a misconception here about the assertion of notability... there is no claim this zine was an influence on 70's 0r 80's punk. No, this zine was a staple of 90's and 00's hardcore and DIY punk. I think that has been proven with the sources that MrFizyx has provided. PT (s-s-s-s) 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing even approaching a reliable source I can see is a four-liner in Metro Santa Cruz (a free weekly), and that doesn't even establish the claim to notability, it just says HaC exists. What I said has nothing to do with era, it has something to do with our policies on outside sourcing, and the sheer lack of them in this article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey t&e, you should update those articles with your quoted source since currently those don't meet WP:RS either. We have lots of articles on music magazines in the same situation, this isn't easy to fix. E.g. every Barnes & Noble carries Guitar World, but if you want to describe its coverage and circulation the easiest thing to do is to go to the source itself (though in this case there are likely trade publications one might find, but not without serious effort). This scene is outside of my expertise. My concern has been that we were deleting this out of ignorance--perhaps some of you have enough punk cred that that I'm wrong about this though. -MrFizyx 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be a misconception here about the assertion of notability... there is no claim this zine was an influence on 70's 0r 80's punk. No, this zine was a staple of 90's and 00's hardcore and DIY punk. I think that has been proven with the sources that MrFizyx has provided. PT (s-s-s-s) 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs clean-up but this publication is certainly notable, well-known, and foundationally important to the American Hardcore scene. This is one of a handful of very important zines with good distribution (including maximumrocknroll, punk planet, under the volcano, and flipside) that functioned as a clearinghouse of information for punk, hardcore, and the DIY movement before (and while) the internet became so widespread.CDaniel 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep HeartattaCk is reasonably notable because it sold 10,000 copies of almost 50 different issues over the years. The issues that are still available will be gone shortly. Only a handful of punk zines have ever been able to achieve this feat. Those other zines include Flipside, Maximum RocknRoll, and Punk Planet. In an interview in 2000, Aaron Elliott was quoted as saying his Cometbus publication was being printed in quantities of 8,000, so at the time, even that legendary zine wasn’t selling as many copies. My point is that you can’t repeatedly sell 10,000 copies of a punk zine over a 12 year period without being a notable publication. Furthermore, this zine was a self-sustaining project after the first few years, so it wasn’t being run by a scam artist who was purchasing a bunch of stamps and inventing print run numbers since 1994 with the sole purpose of being included on Wikipedia in 2006. -Martin062 09:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you got a source for that? ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at the print run numbers source for yourself on my site. The HeartattaCk print run numbers are listed on page 2 of issue #3, page 2 of issue #5, and page 8 of issue #6 (upper right hand corner for all). The scans were taken from the original zines. The source for these zines not being available at this time is HeartattaCk’s official site, which is listed in the external links section. The source for the Cometbus print run number is Maximumrocknroll issue #200, and a copy of that interview can be seen here. Once again, a zine can be notable and relevant even if some of you haven’t heard of it. -Martin062 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Me haven't heard of it doesn't really mean anything. I've ok-ed many articles on subjects that I haven't heard of before, because others have and have reported on it in reliable sources. That's the whole concept behind Wikipedia, and as I've posted above there are in fact punk zines that have been covered. The literature on punk is actually quite large (although most of it is on 1976-87). So the numerous evasive arguments here ("why isn't the NYT article sourced?") and the reliance on personal experience makes me doubt the arguments that this zine was notable. Otherwise folks would've come up with quotes from now notable bands claiming that HaC was the first zine to review them, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- There’s nothing evasive about my argument. A rational person can easily argue that a zine selling so many issues over that length of time was notable and relevant. If it wasn’t, the zine would have ceased to exist many years ago. The lack of a mainstream news source reporting on the existence of HeartattaCk doesn’t diminish its importance or negate the facts surrounding its history. -Martin062 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to your argument specifically. You actually cited a source, even though it's a primary one. This has also nothing to do with "importance" but with Wikipedia policies, which ask for backing of claims by reliable sources and prohibit original research. ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- There’s nothing evasive about my argument. A rational person can easily argue that a zine selling so many issues over that length of time was notable and relevant. If it wasn’t, the zine would have ceased to exist many years ago. The lack of a mainstream news source reporting on the existence of HeartattaCk doesn’t diminish its importance or negate the facts surrounding its history. -Martin062 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Me haven't heard of it doesn't really mean anything. I've ok-ed many articles on subjects that I haven't heard of before, because others have and have reported on it in reliable sources. That's the whole concept behind Wikipedia, and as I've posted above there are in fact punk zines that have been covered. The literature on punk is actually quite large (although most of it is on 1976-87). So the numerous evasive arguments here ("why isn't the NYT article sourced?") and the reliance on personal experience makes me doubt the arguments that this zine was notable. Otherwise folks would've come up with quotes from now notable bands claiming that HaC was the first zine to review them, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at the print run numbers source for yourself on my site. The HeartattaCk print run numbers are listed on page 2 of issue #3, page 2 of issue #5, and page 8 of issue #6 (upper right hand corner for all). The scans were taken from the original zines. The source for these zines not being available at this time is HeartattaCk’s official site, which is listed in the external links section. The source for the Cometbus print run number is Maximumrocknroll issue #200, and a copy of that interview can be seen here. Once again, a zine can be notable and relevant even if some of you haven’t heard of it. -Martin062 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you got a source for that? ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- keep per user:PT. He raised a few good points, the zine seems notable enough to justify its status as an article on wikipedia. RiseRobotRise 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment/note to closing admin - As much as I wish I could declare this a keep, the vote seems split. I would ask that this be declared a no consensus, default to keep. The AfD has attracted many editors to contribute to the article, and I feel more time to let it expand would help further assert its notability. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also note the following editors were contacted by User:parsssseltongue regarding this AfD: Soja, Dan Carkner, Tothebarricades.tk, MeltBanana, Silent2thebizzob, Macho, Xsxex, CDaniel, Jubella, Jon138, Hotdogs, RiseRobotRise. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 18#Andrew Jackson Jihad. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. We needed people who actually understood the topic to weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why? WP is an encyclopedia for all people. Less than 100% of the people who read this article are into punk zines, so why should apparent canvassing occur? How would people "in the know" help? If they can add info to the article, then by all means, they should do so. But I'm sorry, PT- with this and Andrew Jackson Jihad, you do look as if you're trying to solicit !votes. I like you, and you know that I hold you in high regard, but (barring extraordinary circumstances) I see no reason to contact anyone for an AfD who was not a frequent contributor to the article. -- Kicking222 03:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. We needed people who actually understood the topic to weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also note the following editors were contacted by User:parsssseltongue regarding this AfD: Soja, Dan Carkner, Tothebarricades.tk, MeltBanana, Silent2thebizzob, Macho, Xsxex, CDaniel, Jubella, Jon138, Hotdogs, RiseRobotRise. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 18#Andrew Jackson Jihad. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per A Man In Black. Even if all the assertations were verified, it still wouldn't meet notability. Sorry. --Aaron 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per AMIB and Aaron. -- Kicking222 03:17, 19 October 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.
