Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ampersand 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, for now. The consensus is actually to merge to the article on National-Louis University, but there is no section or article on the Polish campus. Once such an article is written, Ampersand magazine should be merged into it; if the notability of the magazine can be better established in the meantime, I imagine that it could retain its own article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ampersand magazine

Ampersand magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable academic magazine. See WP:BK\Academic books. Visor (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think magazines (like this one) marketed to audiences attending academic organizations are different than the academic research/discussion journals in WP:BK\Academic books. It's a three-day-old article, the only contribution by its creator, on a one-year-old magazine. Likely non-notable but I haven't made up my mind. Canuckle 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly notable but impossible to tell without independent sources attesting same. I would preferably merge to National-Louis University, but there isn't even a section on the Polish campus. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is, under section Studenci. Actually, the Ampersand is a part of the official NLU website. See my comment below. greg park avenue 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why merge when there are also many independent references relating to Ampersand stating its notability like for example in Gazeta Krakowska (these are paid of course just like the archived articles in NYT are, that's why I didn't insert it into main text) or in GD&K group, which is founding the Ampersand? greg park avenue 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Two are not many, and reference on their publisher hardly counts.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Publisher, no publisher, still an entity independent from NLU. I used the wrong word - supposed to be not founding but financing; it means - sponsoring. That's quite a difference, wouldn't you say? greg park avenue 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The sources are in Polish and are, therefore, difficult to verify by English-language users on an English Wikipedia. It also hints of WP:SPAM and engages in crystalballism, suggesting WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources written in Polish do not necessarily spell WP:SPAM, WP:CRYSTAL or WP:COI. Please, explain where do you see hint at spam or conflict of interest in this article. Besides, my dear anonymous English-language user, where in an English wikipedia or in WP:RS stands that all sources must be in English? greg park avenue 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources in Polish are "difficult to verify." I did not say that makes it spam. "Editorial staff would like to stand between Polish and non-Polish speaking students as a unifying factor; to join them and enable them to understand one another better by publishing a magazine entirely in English. . . . In the 2007/2008 academic year, the magazine is going to expand nationally by providing its free issues at the universities, and English schools. There are also plans to cooperate with foreign colleges. The content is going to be more focused on business and political issues, as well as on the international affairs." This hints of spam and engages in crystalballism. --Evb-wiki 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, see WP:Verifiability: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. (emphasis added). --Evb-wiki 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind to explain that a little bit further in your own words? This is a business school, so they focus on business. Sounds healthy to me. Just like a law school would focus on law instead on let's say philosophy or Greek mythology. Them students are trying to understand each other with students from similar faculties in the other countries by publishing this magazine entirely in English and handing it out gratis. What's wrong with that? It's Europe's way. In America during college intermission you don't hitchhike to Spain or to Switzerland looking for new faces to exchange your new aquired skills with someone like you. You just drive your SUV to the parent's house or down the shore looking for girlfriends and spend time with them playing all American hero - see Tom Wolfe's "I am Charlotte Simmons" greg park avenue 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, this magazine has an ISSN. Worldcat doesnt show that this magazine is being distributed widely, but worldcat is (was?) predominately American. I would change my vote to keep in a snap if someone can show that this magazine is in print, and is held in a few libraries of other notable European universities. John Vandenberg 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The reference about circulation of Ampersand and its sister in Polish "In Blanco" I have already produced earlier you can find at official WSB-NLU site. It states that both magazines are independent student journals distributed freely on and off campus in over one thousand editions in print per issue. To check out that Ampersand has also a version in print go to take a look at front covers of the earlier issues of Ampersand. Do these look like the internet version to you? Regarding ISSN, libraries rarely catalogue free journals, the stores almost never do. These are just lying around waiting for someone to pick it up, that's why you ain't got no hits at ISSN. No one advertises it because the journal represent independent student views, just like no one advertises Wikipedia. What else proof do you need? greg park avenue 15:38, 2 July 2007 (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.