Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Ray (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 - appears to have been improved to meet notability and sourcing standards. WilyD 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Ray (magazine)

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

Delete nn magazine published by a nn company, fails WP:CORP.

also nominating:
  • Carlossuarez46 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteAll: Not notable, and I don't see an assertion of notability with Blackfish Publishing. - Rjd0060 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all ev'em per WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete an article rather than ask it to be improved first? This is a magazine available nationwide in the UK and therefore notable in my book, whatever Wikipedia guidelines (note: not rules) say. There are also a lot of other magazine articles about magazines with a LOT less notability than this one (and I'd keep most of them, too). It's like Wikipedia has turned from a site which encourages people to add information and articles to one where people actively want to delete articles. I suspect that puts off a lot of editors, and destroys faith in the project. Stephenb (Talk) 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You've managed to employ three of the classic fallacious arguments in one, there. The fallacies in "Guidelines not rules." and "If article X then article Y." are dealt with in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The third fallacious argument is the "notable in my book" one. If Wikipedia operated that way, then it would be a chaos of individual, personal, and wholly subjective standards of what's notable. That's why we employ the PNC, which is not subjective. If you want to make an argument that actually holds any water, you should address the quantity and depth of the sources available on the subject, showing that the PNC is satisfied. Uncle G 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for pointing out what you consider to be fallacious arguments. The first, "guidelines not rules", is not actually a fallacy (yes, I read the article) but has a valid implication to the debate in that the article should not be deleted simply because it fails to meet a guideline (given as the sole reason for nomination); the second "if X then Y" is true: I agree that it's not an argument not to delete this article, but is a powerful argument when considering what it implies to Wikipedia as a whole, which I hope I justified in the following arguments above; thirdly, "notable in my book" isn't saying that I think it is notable to me, but that I think it meets the criteria of notability for Wikipedia (and note that's always going to have some subjectivity, otherwise they'd all be speedy deleted). Sorry if that wasn't clear. Stephenb (Talk) 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I believe your response has further enlightened us on why those arguments are fallacious. --Nehwyn 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
As fallacious as the idea that the primary notability criterion is not subjective. I count four subjective terms in the sentence. It's a good rule of thimb, but that's all it is, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is another one. Hiding T 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree entirely on all points with Stephenb - very well put. Both are also notable if Matt Bielby is; and I think he is (for his previous prolific editing career). -- roundhouse0 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Hiding T 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Stephenb 203.220.105.151 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a mainstream magazine carried in mainstream shops and seems more than notable enough to deserve inclusion. Alberon 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I just don't see a body of work here that would indicate inclusion. --Stormbay 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I checked over the references of the article and looked for more myself; I was not impressed. There are only two listed in the article and both are shaky at best. Bielby himself asserted that the magazine only had a goal of 20,000 in terms of circulation and readership. The lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources indicates a lack of notability. The magazine is still in its infancy at just around seven months. I would not be opposed to recreation later if it becomes more popular, but right now, it doesn't seem to merit its own article. --Cyrus Andiron 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Stephenb. I heard of this magazine and thought 'I want to find out a bit more about it, I know, I'll try Wikipedia'. And sure enough there was a reasonably informative entry. It would be a shame to delete it! Alarichall (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Good mag, good article. Recently established so sources are few, but def. notable. 203.221.238.246 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep 20,000 isn't much by US standards but for a niche publication in the UK it's quite a bit. It's also widely available in related UK shops and has content (access to stars etc) in keeping with a notable publication. Also is recently established (ditto blackfish). Mr. Analytical (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Death Ray is a publication that deals in a niche subject matter. As a magazine and a piece of media devoted to SF and Fantasy, it is therefore not the kind of publication that is likely to receive much coverage in the mainstream press. This means that the google test, frequently used as a means of gaging notability, is not particularly reliable as a means of determining notability because how notable such a publication is does not depend upon how widely it is discussed but how well it is known and how widely it is read and as Death Ray is widely available in UK shops, I would argue that it is both known and read. Mr. Analytical (talk) 21:29, 6 December 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.