Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 16 Magazine

16 Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced article on a defunct magazine. Technically it cites two sources, but one is 404 and the other is not independent. Compromised by unreferenced peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Plenty of WP:RS coverage found in Google/Google News/Google Books searches. 16 Magazine is credited as leading its genre.[1] A book source found states peak circulation of 4 million. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. As for the magazine's defunct status, notabilty does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, that dead link has been recovered. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, tricky to Google but definitely a notable magazine in its day. Discussed in biographies of Jim Morrison, histories of punk rock, etc. Notable as being a music-oriented publication run by a woman. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and the fact that the article needs work doesn't change that. Pitamakan (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A good example of Wikipedia's web-bias. Just because a magazine is defunct and dates back many years and doesn't have a million Ghits shouldn't disqualify it, and the magazine clearly was around for a long time. Definitely notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability easily established per above comments. I wish people would do a bit of basic research before wasting everyone's time by nominating articles on notable subjects for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (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.


Thank you all for the "Keep" votes. I did my best with this article, as I do with ALL of the articles I originate, in trying to find proper verifiable resources and what not. Quuite frankly, I am getting rather discouraged and am seriously considering no longer contributing to Wikipedia. Why? First the vote for deletion on this, and then having other topics like my Nick Gabaldon surfing entry challenged. I feel like there is some sort of bias going on here. Unlike some people, I don't wilfully create frivilous entries. Each one I feel is important and should be included! It took me the better part of two years to research 16 Magazine as well as the Nick Gabaldon article. Why can't people understand or appreciate those efforts and all the blood, sweat, tears, passion and sometimes personal travel and expense that goes into learning about the topic and then sharing with others here? What is it with some here who are constantly trying to shoot down other people's work just because they don't agree with stuff or have some sort of prejudice against either the topic or possibly the originator of the topic? It's sad to see how Wikipedia has become increasingly elitist in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladycascadia (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)